Housing farm workers: assessing the significance of the bracero labor camps in Ventura County

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Summarize

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

HOUSING FARM WORKERS: ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BRACERO
LABOR CAMPS IN VENTURA COUNTY

by

Susan Zamudio-Gurrola

____________________________________________________________________

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

December 2009

Copyright 2009 Susan Zamudio-Gurrola
ii

Dedication

To my parents,
who taught me the value of working hard no matter what the task,
and keeping me close to my roots.
iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those who were of assistance in my education and
research on the Bracero Program and on Ventura County.
I thank the people who took the time to share their stories with me and the
current owners of the extant camps who allowed me access, in particular, the
Villasenor family, Samuel Camacho, Mary Guevara, Ralph Ramos, Vicente Martinez,
the ex-braceros that I was able to interview through the Bracero History Archive
project, and the farm workers currently residing at the camps, who graciously allowed
me to wander through their spaces, take photographs and ask questions.
For their assistance in my research, I thank Charles Johnson at the Museum of
Ventura County, Pilar Pacheco at California State University Channel Islands, Nicole
Norori with Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, Kim Hocking at the County of
Ventura, and Jeanne Orcutt at the California Oil Museum for the early leads.
Thank you to my committee: Dr. Ken Breisch, Dr. Kevin Starr, and Dr. Frank
Barajas, for sharing their knowledge, suggestions and support.
Finally, I thank my husband, who washed an extra dish a time or two while I was
immersed in my work.
iv

Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgement iii

List of Figures vi

Abstract xv

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: The Bracero Program in Ventura County 4
The Bracero Program, 1942 – 1964 4
Braceros in Three Ventura County Communities 16
Fillmore 19
Piru 20
Oxnard 22
Farm Worker Housing and Bracero Camps in Ventura County 26
Endnotes 33

Chapter 2: El Campito Bracero Camp in Fillmore, California 39
The Villasenors and Cabrillo Village 46
Building Descriptions 50
Endnotes 70

Chapter 3: El Campito de Piru Bracero Camp in Piru, California 73
Building Descriptions 80
Endnotes 99

Chapter 4: Triple S Bracero Camp, aka Tres S, in Oxnard, California 101
Building Descriptions 107
Endnotes 121

Chapter 5: Buena Vista Bracero Camp in Oxnard, California 123
Endnotes 132

Chapter 6: Garden City Bracero Camp in Oxnard, California 133
Building Descriptions 137
Endnotes 149

Conclusion 150

Bibliography 152
vi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Crowd of braceros outside processing center 12

Figure 2: Braceros waiting in line inside processing center 12

Figure 3: Braceros stopping at different stations 12

Figure 4: Braceros in line to obtain chest radiographs 12

Figure 5: Braceros receiving physicals 13

Figure 6: Braceros receiving vaccines 13

Figure 7: Braceros being fingerprinted 13

Figure 8: Braceros being photographed 13

Figure 9: Braceros having their contracts explained to them 13

Figure 10: Braceros receiving their paperwork 13

Figure 11: Braceros being sprayed with DDT 14

Figure 12: Braceros disembarking train 14

Figure 13: Map showing communities of Fillmore, Piru and Oxnard 26

Figure 14: Housing for Mexican families provided by Limoneira Ranch 28

Figure 15: Housing for Mexican families provided by American Crystal Sugar Co. 29

Figure 16: Housing for Mexican families provided by Rancho Sespe 30

Figure 17: Site plan of El Campito, Fillmore, CA 51

Figure 18: El Campito, brick fireplace 53

Figure 19: El Campito, Building 1, North Elevation 54

Figure 20: El Campito, Building 1, South Elevation 54

Figure 21: El Campito, Building 1, West Elevation 54

Figure 22: El Campito, Building 1, East Elevation 54

Figure 23: El Campito, Building 2, North Elevation 55

vii

Figure 24: El Campito, Building 2, South Elevation 55

Figure 25: El Campito, Building 2, East Elevation 55

Figure 26: El Campito, Building 2, West Elevation 55

Figure 27: El Campito, Building 3, North Elevation, Panorama 1 56

Figure 28: El Campito, Building 3, North Elevation, Panorama 2 56

Figure 29: El Campito, Building 3, North Elevation, Panorama 3 57

Figure 30: El Campito, Building 3, South Elevation, Panorama 1 57

Figure 31: El Campito, Building 3, South Elevation, Panorama 2 57

Figure 32: El Campito, Building 3, South Elevation, Panorama 3 57

Figure 33: El Campito, Building 3, South Elevation, Panorama 4 57

Figure 34: El Campito, Building 3, East Elevation 58

Figure 35: El Campito, Building 3, West Elevation 58

Figure 36: El Campito, Building 3, Interior 58

Figure 37: El Campito, Building 3, Interior, 1951 58

Figure 38: El Campito, Building 4, North Elevation 59

Figure 39: El Campito, Building 4, South Elevation 59

Figure 40: El Campito, Building 4, East Elevation 59

Figure 41: El Campito, Building 4, West Elevation 59

Figure 42: El Campito, Building 5, North Elevation 60

Figure 43: El Campito, Building 5, South Elevation 60

Figure 44: El Campito, Building 5, West Elevation 60

Figure 45: El Campito, Building 5, Closeup of Footing 60

Figure 46: El Campito, Buildings 6, 7 and 8, North Elevation 61

Figure 47: El Campito, Buildings 6 and 7, South Elevation 61

Figure 48: El Campito, Building 8, South Elevation 61
viii

Figure 49: El Campito, Building 8, East Elevation 61

Figure 50: El Campito, Building 9, North Elevation 62

Figure 51: El Campito, Building 9, South Elevation 62

Figure 52: El Campito, Building 9, East Elevation 62

Figure 53: El Campito, Building 9, West Elevation 62

Figure 54: El Campito, Building 10, North Elevation 63

Figure 55: El Campito, Building 10, South Elevation 63

Figure 56: El Campito, Building 10, East Elevation 63

Figure 57: El Campito, Building 10, West Elevation 63

Figure 58: El Campito, Building 11, North Elevation 64

Figure 59: El Campito, Building 11, South Elevation 64

Figure 60: El Campito, Building 11, East Elevation 64

Figure 61: El Campito, Building 11, West Elevation 64

Figure 62: El Campito, Building 12, North Elevation 65

Figure 63: El Campito, Building 12, South Elevation 65

Figure 64: El Campito, Building 12, East Elevation 65

Figure 65: El Campito, Building 12, West Elevation 65

Figure 66: El Campito, Building 13, North Elevation 66

Figure 67: El Campito, Building 13, South Elevation 66

Figure 68: El Campito, Building 13, East Elevation 66

Figure 69: El Campito, Building 13, West Elevation 66

Figure 70: El Campito, Building 14, North Elevation 67

Figure 71: El Campito, Building 14, South Elevation 67

Figure 72: El Campito, Building 14, East Elevation 67

ix

Figure 73: El Campito, Building 14, West Elevation 67

Figure 74: El Campito, Building 15, North Elevation 68

Figure 75: El Campito, Building 15, South Elevation 68

Figure 76: El Campito, Building 15, East Elevation 69

Figure 77: El Campito, Building 15, West Elevation 69

Figure 78: Piru Citrus Association president being presented with certificate 75

Figure 79: Pool grand opening 76

Figure 80: Pool in present day 76

Figure 81: Site Plan of El Campito de Piru, Piru, California 80

Figure 82: El Campito de Piru, Building 1, North Elevation 82

Figure 83: El Campito de Piru, Building 1, South Elevation 82

Figure 84: El Campito de Piru, Building 1, West Elevation 82

Figure 85: El Campito de Piru, Building 1, East Elevation 82

Figure 86: El Campito de Piru, Building 1, Close-up of Sign 82

Figure 87: El Campito de Piru, Building 2, Concrete Slab 83

Figure 88: El Campito de Piru, Building 3, Concrete Slab 83

Figure 89: El Campito de Piru, Building 4, North Elevation 84

Figure 90: El Campito de Piru, Building 4, South Elevation 84

Figure 91: El Campito de Piru, Building 4, West Elevation 84

Figure 92: El Campito de Piru, Building 4, East Elevation 84

Figure 93: El Campito de Piru, Building 4, Closeup of Stucco 85

Figure 94: El Campito de Piru, Building 5, North Elevation 86

Figure 95: El Campito de Piru, Building 5, South Elevation 86

Figure 96: El Campito de Piru, Building 5, West Elevation 86

Figure 97: El Campito de Piru, Building 5, East Elevation 86
x

Figure 98: El Campito de Piru, Building 6, North Elevation 87

Figure 99: El Campito de Piru, Building 6, South Elevation 87

Figure 100: El Campito de Piru, Building 6, East Elevation 87

Figure 101: El Campito de Piru, Building 6, West Elevation 87

Figure 102: El Campito de Piru, Building 7, North Elevation 88

Figure 103: El Campito de Piru, Building 7, South Elevation 88

Figure 104: El Campito de Piru, Building 7, East Elevation 88

Figure 105: El Campito de Piru, Building 7, West Elevation 88

Figure 106: El Campito de Piru, Building 8, North Elevation 89

Figure 107: El Campito de Piru, Building 8, South Elevation 89

Figure 108: El Campito de Piru, Building 8, East Elevation 90

Figure 109: El Campito de Piru, Building 8, West Elevation 90

Figure 110: El Campito de Piru, Building 8, False Door 90

Figure 111: El Campito de Piru, Building 9, North Elevation 91

Figure 112: El Campito de Piru, Building 9, South Elevation 91

Figure 113: El Campito de Piru, Building 9, East Elevation 91

Figure 114: El Campito de Piru, Building 9, West Elevation 91

Figure 115: El Campito de Piru, Building 10, North Elevation, Panorama 1 92

Figure 116: El Campito de Piru, Building 10, North Elevation, Panorama 2 92

Figure 117: El Campito de Piru, Building 10, North Elevation, Panorama 3 92

Figure 118: El Campito de Piru, Building 10, South Elevation, Panorama 1 93

Figure 119: El Campito de Piru, Building 10, South Elevation, Panorama 2 93

Figure 120: El Campito de Piru, Building 10, South Elevation, Panorama 3 93

Figure 121: El Campito de Piru, Building 10, East Elevation 93

Figure 122: El Campito de Piru, Building 10, West Elevation 93
xi

Figure 123: El Campito de Piru, Building 10, Interior, 1960s 94

Figure 124: El Campito de Piru, Building 11, North Elevation 95

Figure 125: El Campito de Piru, Building 11, South Elevation 95

Figure 126: El Campito de Piru, Building 11, East Elevation 95

Figure 127: El Campito de Piru, Building 11, West Elevation 95

Figure 128: El Campito de Piru, Building 12, North and East Elevation 96

Figure 129: El Campito de Piru, Building 12, South Elevation 96

Figure 130: El Campito de Piru, homemade basketball hoop 97

Figure 131: El Campito de Piru, bench at North edge of property 97

Figure 132: Site Plan of Triple S Camp, Oxnard, California 107

Figure 133: Triple S Camp, Building A, North Elevation 110

Figure 134: Triple S Camp, Building A, South Elevation 110

Figure 135: Triple S Camp, Building A, West Elevation 110

Figure 136: Triple S Camp, Building A, East Elevation, Panorama 1 110

Figure 137: Triple S Camp, Building A, East Elevation, Panorama 2 111

Figure 138: Triple S Camp, Building A, East Elevation, Panorama 3 111

Figure 139: Triple S Camp, entrance to chapel 111

Figure 140: Triple S Camp, chapel Interior 111

Figure 141: Triple S Camp, Building B, North Elevation 112

Figure 142: Triple S Camp, Building B, South Elevation 112

Figure 143: Triple S Camp, Building B, West Elevation 112

Figure 144: Triple S Camp, Building B, East Elevation 112

Figure 145: Triple S Camp, Building C, North Elevation 113

Figure 146: Triple S Camp, Building C, South Elevation 113

Figure 147: Triple S Camp, Building C, West Elevation 113
xii

Figure 148: Triple S Camp, Building C, East Elevation 113

Figure 149: Triple S Camp, Building H, North Elevation 114

Figure 150: Triple S Camp, Building H, South Elevation 114

Figure 151: Triple S Camp, Building H, West Elevation 114

Figure 152: Triple S Camp, Building H, East Elevation 114

Figure 153: Triple S Camp, Building I, North Elevation 115

Figure 154: Triple S Camp, Building I, South Elevation 115

Figure 155: Triple S Camp, Building I, West Elevation 115

Figure 156: Triple S Camp, Building I, East Elevation 115

Figure 157: Triple S Camp, Building L, North Elevation 116

Figure 158: Triple S Camp, Building L, South Elevation 116

Figure 159: Triple S Camp, Building L, West Elevation 116

Figure 160: Triple S Camp, Building L, East Elevation 116

Figure 161: Triple S Camp, Building P, North Elevation 117

Figure 162: Triple S Camp, Building P, South Elevation 117

Figure 163: Triple S Camp, Building P, West Elevation 117

Figure 164: Triple S Camp, Building P, East Elevation 117

Figure 165: Triple S Camp, basketball court in SE corner of property 118

Figure 166: Triple S Camp, Building Q, North Elevation 119

Figure 167: Triple S Camp, Building Q, South Elevation 119

Figure 168: Triple S Camp, Building Q, West Elevation 119

Figure 169: Triple S Camp, Building Q, East Elevation 119

Figure 170: Triple S Camp, interior of a dorm room 119

Figure 171: Triple S Camp, Thanksgiving Day meal 120

Figure 172: Triple S Camp, fruit snacks for farm workers 120
xiii

Figure 173: Plot Plan for Buena Vista Camp, Oxnard, 06/06/1960 129

Figure 174: Demolition and Utilities Alteration for Buena Vista Camp, 06/10/1975 130

Figure 175: Demolition Activity at Buena Vista Camp 131

Figure 176: Site Plan of Garden City Camp 138

Figure 177: Garden City Camp, Building 1, North Elevation 139

Figure 178: Garden City Camp, Building 1, South Elevation 139

Figure 179: Garden City Camp, Building 1, East Elevation 139

Figure 180: Garden City Camp, Building 1, West Elevation 139

Figure 181: Garden City Camp, Building 2, North Elevation 140

Figure 182: Garden City Camp, Building 2, South Elevation 140

Figure 183: Garden City Camp, Building 2, East Elevation 140

Figure 184: Garden City Camp, Building 2, West Elevation 140

Figure 185: Garden City Camp, Building 3, North Elevation 141

Figure 186: Garden City Camp, Building 3, South Elevation 141

Figure 187: Garden City Camp, Building 3, East Elevation 142

Figure 188: Garden City Camp, Building 3, West Elevation 142

Figure 189: Garden City Camp, Building 4, North Elevation 143

Figure 190: Garden City Camp, Building 4, South Elevation 143

Figure 191: Garden City Camp, Building 4, East Elevation 143

Figure 192: Garden City Camp, Building 4, West Elevation 143

Figure 193: Garden City Camp, Building 5, North Elevation 144

Figure 194: Garden City Camp, Building 5, South Elevation 144

Figure 195: Garden City Camp, Building 5, East Elevation 144

Figure 196: Garden City Camp, Building 5, West Elevation 144

Figure 197: Garden City Camp, Building 6, North Elevation 145
xiv

Figure 198: Garden City Camp, Building 6, South Elevation 145

Figure 199: Garden City Camp, Building 6, East Elevation 146

Figure 200: Garden City Camp, Building 6, West Elevation 146

Figure 201: Garden City Camp, Building 7, NW Elevation 147

Figure 202: Garden City Camp, Building 7, SE Elevation 147

Figure 203: Garden City Camp, Building 7, NE Elevation 147

Figure 204: Garden City Camp, Building 7, SW Elevation 147

Figure 205: Garden City Camp, Building 7, Porch Attached to NE Elevation 148

Figure 206: Garden City Camp, Building 7, Porch Attached to NE Elevation 148

Figure 207: Garden City Camp, Building 7, Porch Attached to NE Elevation 148

xv

Abstract

Five farm worker housing camps established in the period of the Bracero
Program were assessed for historic significance. The Bracero Program entailed a series
of agreements between U.S. and Mexican governments allowing for the importation of
Mexican laborers. Originally conceived to supply labor for the agriculture industry during
WWII, after revisions and extensions, the program continued for over two decades, from
1942 to 1964. The Bracero Program played a role in shaping Ventura County’s
agriculture industry. It created a managed migration of Mexican nationals, fostered their
settlement in numerous communities throughout the county, and negatively affected job
availability and wages for domestics, thus contributing to the rise of the farm worker
movement in the second half of the twentieth century.
The camps have often been overlooked due to their isolated locations,
nondescript appearance, a lack of understanding of their significance, or their
association with the history of an underrepresented ‘minority’ population.

1

Introduction

In the field of historic preservation, it can be easy to overlook the significance of
structures that do not stand out for their appearance, or to fail to acknowledge structures
that are not associated with well-known people or events. Even now, there are
underrepresented groups whose stories must be discovered, recorded and told.
Preservationists must make an effort to be inclusive of the history of the various
nationalities in this country. The United States of America is, after all, comprised of
immigrants from across the globe, whose relocation was influenced by various push and
pull factors. The manner by which persons arrived to this country leaves behind physical
remnants, evidencing not only their migration, but political, economic and social history.
Unfortunately, many minority groups are not empowered or organized to call
attention to the preservation of their local history and related sites. One example in
which a particularly large segment of an area’s population is often overlooked is in
Ventura County, California. One will find few or non-existent landmarks related to its
Mexican communities, a significant population group in both the county and in the
Southern California area.
Local, state and national landmarks in Ventura County are commonly associated
with the Spanish missions and rancho era, homes and businesses of prominent Anglo
settlers, popular building styles, and buildings designed by prominent architects. The
acknowledgement of minorities’ histories is still lacking.
One significant factor that influenced Mexican immigration and settlement, by
bringing multitudes of Mexican laborers to work on United States farms, was the Bracero
Program, a series of bi-national agreements between the United States and Mexico that

2

were in place from 1942 through 1964. It was the largest and most significant U.S.
guest worker program of the twentieth century, with an estimated 4.5 million contracts
awarded over its twenty-two year existence. A managed migration of Mexican nationals
was created through this government sponsored system, paralleled by a migration of
undocumented workers. Communities in the American southwest, in particular, were
visibly shaped by this process.
The extensive agriculture industry in Ventura County brought large numbers of
braceros into the region. Many of these laborers settled in the communities in which
they worked, brought families from their homeland, and undoubtedly encouraged
relatives and friends to immigrate as well. Countless Mexican-Americans are able to
trace, in their ancestry, family members who worked in agriculture and who were
involved in the Bracero Program.
In Ventura County, physical remnants associated with the Bracero Program
include places of employment, places of residence, and the agricultural landscape.
These places are not always recognizable, due in part to their physical location and
nondescript appearance.
Perhaps the bracero camps have not garnered recognition because they are
cultural resources from our recent past. Also, some may see the extant camps as
dilapidated structures that are not adequate for continued use today and were inferior
from their inception. Former braceros may think of them as an unpleasant memory from
a challenging time in their lives.
However, a strong case can be made for their preservation. In addition to
documenting the building forms that were used for farm worker housing at the time and
illustrating what living conditions were like for immigrant farm workers in the region, the
camps are a tangible part of Mexicans’ history in the United States and in Ventura
3

County. The bracero camps have important ties to the development of the agriculture
industry in the region, the movement for farm workers’ rights, and immigration and
settlement patterns. In this thesis, five bracero camps in the communities of Fillmore,
Piru and Oxnard are studied in order to assess and record their significance.

4

Chapter 1: The Bracero Program in Ventura County, California

The Bracero Program, 1942 – 1964

A lengthy and controversial bi-national agreement, first arranged in 1942
between the United States and Mexico, allowed the large-scale importation of
temporary Mexican agricultural laborers. Known as the Bracero Program, it was
originally proposed as a solution to a labor shortage that the American agriculture
industry experienced during World War II. The bracero agreement underwent
amendments and extensions, continuing for over two decades until being terminated
on December 31, 1964. While other foreign workers also held temporary employment
in United States agriculture, between the years of 1942 and 1967 a large majority –
more than 92 percent – were Mexican.
1

The original agreement called for Mexican men known as braceros (which
translates from Spanish as one who does work with his arms and hands), to be
contracted as temporary farm workers throughout the war years until the end of
hostilities. The United States had entered World War II in December of 1941, a
somewhat sudden event following the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. The
agriculture industry experienced a shortage of labor as men departed for military
service. Of those who remained, many moved into better paying manufacturing work.
In California, for example, a considerable defense industry had developed. Americans
from southern and central states migrated to western states. A number of them may
have taken up agriculture work, but likely also left the fields for other occupations.
As the war progressed, American companies began to increase their
production of war-related goods and the U.S. farmer was asked to produce more and
more. An important wartime duty was to continue putting food on the tables of the
5

American people as well as providing supplies for troops. Plans to replenish the
supply of laborers used to harvest crops included placing print ads and radio
announcements, granting military deferments for farm workers, and in some areas
shortening the school year, recruiting the mentally ill, closing certain businesses, and
mobilizing youth and city dwellers for emergency farm work. Yet all of these efforts did
not eliminate the demand to import braceros. Growers still claimed to lack workers to
perform “stoop labor”.
2

Although California growers had petitioned the government for permission to
import Mexican laborers prior to the United States’ entry into the war, the government
had denied the requests as it was deemed that sufficient domestic labor existed to
meet demand. By 1942, however, the government accepted the growers’ pleas of a
labor shortage, and in August of that year the two nations finalized the bracero
agreement.
3
The braceros were to be contracted only for the production of essential
food and fiber. However, no farm product was ever declared non-essential; braceros
were used in crops that were not typically deemed as vital to the food supply.
4

In analyzing the Bracero Program, scholar Ernesto Galarza contends that the
real crisis of mobilization and production during the war years was that in the smaller
pool of manpower, the wage structure could be upset, and possibly give a smaller and
more compact labor force some measure of economic leverage.
5
To suppress that
possibility, U.S. growers imported a surplus of temporary foreign laborers.
Nearly 170,000 Mexican farm workers were contracted through the agricultural
Bracero Program during the war years of 1942 through 1945.
6
A separate short-lived
program that recruited men for railroad work paralleled the larger, more well-known
agricultural program. From May 1943 through 1946 more than 130,000 Mexicans

6

were admitted as railroad workers in the U.S.
7
Originally scheduled to expire with the
end of hostilities, the wartime program was extended until December 31, 1947.
Initially overseen by the Farm Security Administration, administrative control of
the Bracero Program was transferred to the War Manpower Commission in June
1943. The FSA had been criticized by commercial farm interests since its creation.
Charles C. Teague, an influential leader in the Ventura County citrus industry, told a
senate committee that the Secretary of Agriculture had “appointed the wrong agency
to administer the program”. Teague accused the FSA of deliberately creating
unsettled conditions which made it difficult for employers to get along with their
bracero labor force.
8

After managing the wartime program, the U.S. government ended some of its
responsibilities in regards to the importation of Mexican farm workers. A modified
agreement was formed in 1948 in which the contractor was no longer the United
States government but the individual farmer or his representative. The WMC was
dismantled the same year and responsibility for the administration of the bracero
agreements was passed to the U.S. Department of Labor and its agency, the Bureau
of Employment Security. The Bureau in turn utilized the services of the Farm
Placement Service in California.
9

Author Richard Craig remarked that with the passage of Public Law 78 and the
negotiation of the bracero agreement of 1951, the program was no longer a temporary
phenomenon but a permanent component (over the following fourteen years) of United
States farm labor and of U.S. – Mexico relations. An estimated 4.5 million Mexican
nationals were legally contracted for work on U.S. farms over the duration of the
program from 1942 to 1964.
10

7

In order to continue what was supposed to be a provisional arrangement to
meet wartime labor shortages, Galarza maintains that growers prolonged the ‘crisis’
using semantics when facts were unavailable. The argument of a shortage of
domestic labor was likely no longer a vital issue after the close of the war. It is more
likely that the farmers simply preferred to use braceros. They were a controllable
labor force that often were underpaid and did not have the right to organize or strike.
The moneyed agriculture industry held a great deal of clout, influencing the U.S.
government moreso than any smaller group of citizens.
Arguments existed both for and against the Bracero Program. Many believed
that the Bracero Program was beneficial to Mexico. Among Americans, traces of a
sense of patronizing, religious responsibility are noted. Stuart Rothman, solicitor for
the Department of Labor, in speaking about bracero labor cited fundamental American
and Christian duties “to be friendly to the stranger in your midst”, and “on the basis of
sound administration and Christian principles to help and assist these unfortunate
people.”
11
Mexico was thought to have a large peasant population without the
topographic base required to sustain it. The earnings of the typical rural Mexican were
substantially less than the urban Mexican, who in turn earned less than a typical U.S.
worker.
12
The offer of employment for braceros in the U.S. was seen as a boon to
Mexico; the potential exploitation of the laborers was not always on the forefront of
people’s minds.
Braceros remitted millions of dollars to their families while they worked in the
U.S.
13
Earnings and products acquired while in the U.S. would also benefit the
braceros’ families and home country upon their return. Examples of the types of items
that were acquired in the U.S. and transported back home after a bracero’s work
contract expired include a radio, a television, a blender and a sewing machine.
14

8

Arguments against the program included the depression of wages and
decreased employment opportunities for domestics in the United States. The
California Senate Fact Finding Committee on Labor and Welfare issued a report in
1961 that found that farmers had used the Bracero Program to freeze wages at low
levels, that domestic workers were being discriminated against in favor of braceros,
and that farmers and farm associations who used bracero labor either deterred
domestics from applying for work or harassed them so that they would not continue if
actually hired. However, it was still predicted that the termination of the program
“would be devastating to vast segments of this state’s agriculture, and irreparably
damaging to California’s economy as a whole.”
15
The Bracero Program continued
through the end of 1964.
In Mexico, arguments against the guest worker program included the obvious
disruption of family life, the potential desertion of wives and children, the notion of an
immoral lifestyle in the U.S. which could involve prostitution, alcohol or gambling, the
depletion of Mexico’s skilled laborers, and an increased economic dependence on the
United States.
16
Many allegations of mistreatment of the braceros by their employers
surfaced, including being provided with substandard meals or housing, unsafe working
conditions, and employers not following the regulations of the agreement. For
example, some braceros performed work without being informed what their pay rate
would be, had unexpected deductions taken from their paychecks, or were not
provided with their minimum work guarantee of three-fourths of the workdays of their
contract period.
Corruption in the contracting system was common.
17
Some farm workers
unfortunately acquired debt before even beginning the contracting process in their
home country. A bribe payment was required in some areas to facilitate becoming a
9

bracero. Authors Ernesto Galarza and Gilbert Gonzalez describe “certificados”,
“permisos” and “cartas de control” - certification documents, permission and control
letters that the farm workers sometimes had to obtain prior to beginning the
contracting process.
18
If for some reason, the farm worker was not selected to work as
a bracero, he could still be burdened with the debt from obtaining one of these
documents, as well as his travel expenses to the contracting center and back home.
Corruption or extortion created a lucrative side business for some.
19

One ex-bracero described how his contracting process began with
announcements being made in Mexican towns and cities regarding the availability of
agricultural work in the United States. Men reported to recruitment and screening
centers in designated cities closest to their homes. The men were thoroughly
screened; their hands were examined to verify that they had experience as laborers;
they were made to unclothe and were given a thorough physical examination; they
were sprayed for contagious parasites such as lice, and had blood samples taken for
analysis. They were made to wait, sometimes overnight, sometimes a few days until
the results of their examination gave a positive result, in which case they could enter
the United States.
The braceros were contracted to a specific labor assignment and were
transported to the appropriate site. When the length of the contract expired, the
bracero was supposed to return to Mexico.
20
Contracts could have been as short as a
four week period, although extensions up to 18 months were possible.
21
Under the
agreement, employers were to pay the prevailing wage in their area, supply adequate
meals at limited charge and housing at no charge, provide medical care, and transport
the worker from Mexico and back.
22

10

Another ex-bracero described to the author the difficult journey with other men
in his family from his small hometown Vista Hermosa de Negrete to the larger city of
Monterrey where the braceros were being contracted. The men had to find work along
the way, as they ran out of money before arriving to Monterrey. He recounted being
hired to work in a wealthy man’s fields in return for this man arranging a recom-
mendation letter for the bracero program. This was not required; however, some
farm workers were tricked into doing or paying something in return for a recom-
mendation from an influential person. The farm workers were sometimes made to
perform agricultural labor tasks to prove that they possessed the necessary
experience to work as braceros in U.S. fields.
After harvesting the wealthy man’s field, the family members had to wait for
him to return to his rural property with supplies and the recommendation letter. The
property owner took longer than they anticipated, and the men found themselves
surviving on maize until he did so. The story continued tearfully with a recollection of
having to sleep on the ground at the recruitment center and not having enough money
to buy meals as the days passed and they waited to be called. Almost missing their
names when called out among the throng of people, the group did eventually make it
to the United States. Fillmore, in Ventura County, ultimately became the new home of
at least one of the men. The local packing house was to provide steady employment
that was less strenuous than field work.
23

After the termination of the Bracero Program, many growers assisted their farm
workers to obtain lawful permanent residency (green) cards to maintain them as
employees in the U.S. This could be construed in a few different ways. One could
say that the braceros performed quality work that was appreciated and therefore they
were offered the opportunity to stay in the U.S. and continue as employees. But also
11

evident is the growers’ desire to maintain a stable and acquiescent labor force who
were accustomed to the working conditions and wages set by the Bracero Program
agreement and who were not accustomed to having the right to unionize or strike.
In certain areas braceros were also discriminated against. In one example, an
ex-bracero recounted how a barber refused to cut his hair. The bracero did not initially
understand why he was being turned down and assured the barber that he would be
paying in dollars, not pesos. The barber again turned him away, saying that he did not
serve Mexicans.
24

A University of California publication titled Labor Management Decisions
exhibited photographs of the process that potential braceros went through to be
contracted. They are useful in visualizing and understanding the effort that Mexican
men put into obtaining jobs. The photographs were provided by Hilda Mayer and Jack
Lloyd. Mayer was on the administrative staff of the Farm Security Administration and
its successor, the War Food Administration, in Mexico City in 1942-46 and in Los
Angeles during 1947. She then joined the Ventura County Citrus Growers' Committee,
Oxnard, where she served as office manager through 1969. As an officer of the U.S.
Department of Labor from 1958 through 1961, Mr. Lloyd enforced employer
compliance with terms of the Bracero Program. He managed Coastal Growers Citrus
Harvesting Association in Ventura County from 1962 until his retirement in 1986.
25

The photographs show the hordes of men waiting outside the Mexico City
stadium which served as a processing center, the long wait while standing in line, the
different processing stations for U.S. and Mexican Immigration and the Social Security
Administration, the farm workers being x-rayed, receiving physicals and vaccines,
being fingerprinted and photographed for identification cards, being read the terms of

12

their contracts and finally receiving the paperwork that would serve as their entry to
the United States. (Figures 1 through 10).
In addition to the illustrations in Labor Management Decisions, one additional
image of the bracero contracting process is included below (Figure 11). For whatever
reason, this imagery was omitted from the U.C. publication. In one of his documentary
photographs from 1956, Leonard Nadel captured a disturbing act which he explained
with the following caption: "Much in the same manner and feeling used in handling
livestock, upon crossing over the bridge from Mexico at Hidalgo, Texas, the men are
herded into groups of 100 through a makeshift booth sprayed with DDT."
26
After
completing their long journey, it was quite a distasteful welcome into the United States.
Lastly, Dorothea Lange captured an image of the “first braceros” disembarking from
the train at their U.S. destination (Figure 12).

Figure 1 Figure 2

Figure 3 Figure 4
13

Figure 5 Figure 6

Figure 7 Figure 8

Figure 9 Figure 10

14

Figure 11 Figure 12
Photograph by Leonard Nadel
27
Photograph by Dorothea Lange
28

At different times throughout the Bracero Program, photographic document-
ation and propaganda materials were commissioned by different groups, such as
government agencies or the growers themselves. Other types of photographic
documentation were created by those working with unions and labor organizers.
Videos and brief magazine style publications were also produced to disseminate
positive information on the Bracero Program and to familiarize the American people
with the Mexican nationals working and living in their cities and towns.
A video titled “Why Braceros?” from circa 1959 was sponsored by the Council
of California Growers and produced by the Wilding-Butler Division of Wilding, Inc. It
was produced to justify the bracero farm labor program to the general public,
particularly citizens in California who felt threatened by the influx of workers from
Mexico. Through interviews with various officials, reasons were delineated why
braceros were needed for American agriculture. It was argued out that braceros were
contracted specifically to perform “stoop labor”, described as the toughest and least
desirable farm jobs.
One example given was the harvesting of citrus. With citrus trees being thorny
15

and more difficult to pick than other fruits, the narrator stated that most American farm
workers would avoid this kind of job. He went on to state that “all such farm jobs
which are tough, dirty or unpleasant are generally referred to as stoop labor.
Understandably then, this is the only area in which the American farm labor supply
falls short and is supplemented by Mexican citizens…”
29
The film also obscured any
exploitation occurring through the Bracero Program; the message it portrayed was that
everyone participating was earning their rightful due.
30

Cesar Chavez and the Community Service Organization’s efforts in Ventura
County in the late 1950s show that plenty of domestic farm workers sought out work of
the same variety that braceros were used for. The widespread use and common
misuse of the Bracero Program fostered the rise of the farm worker movement led by
Cesar Chavez in the second half of the

twentieth century.
31

The Bracero Program was a system of managed migration, part of the overall
stream of Mexican nationals coming to the United States. Although the program was
created to import temporary farm workers, it often led to Mexican agricultural workers
converting into workers in other occupations. While many braceros returned to their
families and hometowns after their contracts expired, a number of them also arranged
for legal residency to continue working and settle in the United States, and another
portion also stayed as undocumented workers. The number of undocumented
workers did not decrease due to legal contracting through the bracero program.
The Bracero Program was the largest and most significant U.S. guest worker
program of the twentieth century.
32
An estimated 4.5 million contracts were awarded
over the twenty-two years the bi-national agreement was in place. It had a profound
effect on the U.S. agriculture industry, the development of the movement for farm

16

worker rights, and on immigration and settlement patterns in the U.S., such as in
Ventura County in southern California.
Braceros in Three Ventura County Communities
Agriculture is a significant industry in Ventura County, both historically and in
present day. In addition to generating direct on-farm employment and revenue,
agricultural production supports a wide range of other businesses. Altogether, farming
and farm-dependent businesses provide an estimated 31,000 jobs in Ventura County
at the present, more than any other sector of the economy except services. National
data ranked the county No. 10 in total crop value among all counties in the United
States as of 2007.
33
Strawberries, lemons, tomatoes, avocados and Valencia oranges
are among the top ranking regional crops today. However, as local historians Judith
Triem and Mitch Stone state, “it was citrus ranching, in both myth and reality, that was
to become thoroughly enmeshed with every aspect of the region’s economy, culture
and popular image.”
34

In a study by University of California researchers Richard Mines and Ricardo
Anzaldua, the three main growing districts of the citrus industry in Arizona and
California were described as the Central Valley, the Desert Valleys, and Southern
California. The Southern California district dominated citrus production since the
planting of the first commercial groves in the 19
th
century until the close of World War
II. At the time of the publication of the study in 1982, the lemon crop was still grown
predominantly in Southern California, especially in Ventura County.
35
In turn, as
compared to other areas in the state, Ventura County was deemed to have a “high
dependence” on bracero labor. California's utilization of braceros varied from crop to
crop, but as an example, in 1962 braceros made up 79.9% of the temporary work
force in the harvesting of tomatoes, 71.4% of the workforce in the lettuce crop, and
17

81.6% of the workforce in the lemon crop.
36
As early as 1948, crop domination by
bracero laborers was apparent in the citrus industry and in the sugar beet crop.
37

A few prominent Anglo families are credited with the establishment of
significant agri-business in Ventura County. In the eastern portion of the county, the
neighboring communities of Santa Paula, Fillmore and Piru had valuable citrus lands
and boasted of families such as the Blanchards, Hardisons, Teagues, McKevetts and
Cooks. Oxnard, located near the Pacific coast, featured one of the leading beet sugar
refineries and also developed substantial vegetable and citrus crops. Prominent
families of this area included the Bards, Oxnards, Maulhardts and Borchards. Triem
and Stone state that:
Because citrus cultivation is a highly capital-intensive industry, it
attracted well established farmers and business people, frequently
from other parts of the country. This factor, together with the ability
of the cooperative associations to manage virtually all aspects of
the growing, packing, shipping and marketing of the fruit, validated
the Southern California citrus grower’s “gentlemen farmer” reputation;
a refined agriculturalist, whose hands needn’t touch the soil. At the
same time, a variety of ethnic groups, including at various times
large numbers of Chinese, Japanese and Mexican immigrants,
characterized the labor force.
38

Considering that the prosperity of the business and fortune of the grower was
carried significantly on the backs of their laborers, to recognize the value of the
agriculture industry in this area one must also recognize the workforce that carried out
so much of the labor such as planting, thinning, pruning, irrigating, harvesting and
packing. Specialized workers were required to perform laborious tasks such as these,
involving endurance and dexterity. Mexicans, along with other minority and immigrant
groups such as the Chinese, Japanese and Filipinos, have long been occupied in this
type of labor. Mexican immigration to the U.S. has been steady over the past century
due to proximity and the economic and political relationship between the two
18

countries, creating a reliable source of farm labor.
39
Even as Mexicans became the
predominant group of farm workers, their dedication to the industry is not always
recognized, nor are tangible remnants of their history preserved.
The number of Mexican-Americans in the region that are able to trace
agricultural laborers in their family heritage is remarkable. While engaging in casual
conversations during everyday encounters such as at the author’s workplace, at a
funeral reception, and while conducting research at the Ventura County recorder’s
office, strangers shared stories about their family members’ involvement in the
agriculture industry. Stories of a father always on the move following the crops as the
seasons changed, of a family divided across the U.S. – Mexico border, and of a
grandfather who was born in a local farm worker camp were among the memories
shared with the author. Presently, the Ventura County Farm Bureau compares the
makeup of county farm workers to the state of California’s farm worker population: an
estimated 95 percent were born outside the United States, and 91 percent were born
in Mexico.
40

The Bracero Program lasted twenty-two years from 1942 to 1964, after
undergoing extensions and modifications. An eventual result was the permanent
settlement of many of these braceros who were contracted to work in the U.S. During
and after the years the program was in effect, increases were also seen in the number
of undocumented workers. After the termination of the program, Ventura County
growers maintained contact with their farm workers by mail and also sent represent-
atives into Mexico to recruit ex-braceros to return to work in the U.S. These actions,
along with the widespread distribution of lawful permanent residency (green) cards

19

resulted in many farm workers settling in the region, oftentimes with families brought
over from Mexico. As one example, after the Bracero Program ended, the citrus giant
Limoneira Company reserved apartments and houses at one of their farm worker
camps for the ex-braceros and their families who were en route to Santa Paula.
41

Three Ventura County communities that were largely affected by the Bracero
Program, and form the focus of this study, will be introduced below.
Fillmore
The city of Fillmore lies between the city of Santa Paula and Piru, an
unincorporated area of the county. Fillmore was planned by Joseph D. McNab of the
Sespe Land and Water Company. Representatives of the Southern Pacific Railroad
came through the area in 1886-1887, seeking a town site where they could establish a
stop. After their first choice of location did not pan out, Southern Pacific worked with
the Sespe Land and Water Company to promote the city of Fillmore further west.
Named in honor of Jerome A. Fillmore, a Southern Pacific general superintendent, the
city’s first street map was recorded in 1888. In the late 1880s, advertisements in the
Los Angeles Times, train excursions and barbecues all served to lure settlers to the
area. Two regular daily trains stopped in Fillmore on the route between Los Angeles
and Santa Barbara. Subsequently, real estate sales and development increased.
Agriculture as an industry began in the Santa Clara River Valley with the
founding of the Limoneira Company in 1893 and the Teague-McKevett Ranch in1908
flanking the city of Santa Paula just west of Fillmore.
42
The Fillmore Citrus Fruit
Association was formed in 1897. (In 1931 it separated its orange and lemon
operations due to the high volume of production, becoming the Fillmore Citrus
Association and the Fillmore Lemon Association. The Fillmore Citrus Association later
became the Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association upon merging with Piru Citrus in 1971.
20

The Fillmore Lemon Association became the Saticoy Lemon Association after the two
merged in 1962). Several packing houses were built and enlarged in the city through-
out the years.
A September 1911 advertisement in the Fillmore Herald touted the steady
growth of the town, attributing it to the area’s varied resources and products which
included oranges, lemons, walnuts, apricots, oil wells and gypsum deposits. The
advertisement publicized that there was plenty of work and a big pay roll.
43
Ruth
Arundell Bryce, who served as the office manager for the Fillmore Citrus Association
from 1938 to 1972 recounts “The citrus industry was the main thing in Fillmore and
everything revolved around it.”
44

During World War II, public consumption of citrus increased and the U.S.
government became a leading customer of oranges and lemons, which were deemed
vital food supplies for the fighting troops of America and its allies. Both the Fillmore
and Piru Citrus Associations were busy during this time, although price controls were
placed on citrus during the war, and shortages of labor were experienced as
agricultural workers either enlisted in military service or moved into other lines of work.
45
Area growers found a reliable labor force through the use of Mexican braceros.
Fillmore did not foster other industries in the same way as it did agriculture. It
is still the city’s main source of income, although much farm land has been lost over
the past few decades to real estate development. Fillmore has grown to a population
of almost 14,000 people and in the latest U.S. census the community was comprised
of 67% of people of Hispanic or Latino origin.
46

Piru
The eastern Santa Clara Valley contains a renowned agricultural show place,
Rancho Camulos, originally part of the land grant of Rancho San Francisco. Ygnacio
21

del Valle acquired approximately 1,500 acres and in 1853 established Rancho
Camulos. Citrus, wine grapes, acres of wheat and corn, almonds, and many other
agricultural products brought wealth to the east end of the valley.
Rancho Camulos gained fame as the fictionalized “Home of Ramona” from
Helen Hunt Jackson’s best selling book Ramona published in 1883. It may have been
this book, along with California’s reputation for a mild climate, that brought the ailing
David C. Cook from Illinois to California and specifically to the Santa Clara Valley. In
April of 1887, Cook purchased the Rancho Temescal land from the del Valle family,
owners of Rancho Camulos. He also purchased eighty acres of Rancho Camulos
from Ygnacio del Valle.
Cook had amassed a small fortune through the publishing of religious tracts,
especially Sunday school books, at his Illinois publishing company. In 1888 he laid out
the Piru townsite and built a depot for the Southern Pacific Railroad and a spur line.
At the same time Cook began agricultural development in Piru Canyon where he
eventually planted 1,500 acres of trees and vineyards. Cook sold the property in 1900
to a group of Los Angeles oil capitalists for $500,000 and returned full time to his
publishing business. The new owners of Rancho Temescal incorporated as the Piru
Oil and Land Company and they, in turn, auctioned off land in the town of Piru.
The land surrounding Piru continued to be used for agriculture as well as oil
exploration. Located south of the town across the Santa Clara River was the Torrey
Canyon Oil Company, one of the largest of several oil companies formed after Piru’s
founding. The town grew slowly with a population of merchants, agricultural workers
and oil workers. During the 1920s the commercial district changed from wood frame
buildings to brick. Additional residences were built, perhaps as a result of the
establishment of the Piru Citrus Association in 1914 (whose members broke away
22

from the Fillmore Citrus Fruit Association), and the construction of their new packing
house in 1919, an important source of employment.
The automotive boom of the 1920s brought an increased number of visitors to
Piru. Center Street was a portion of the main highway through the valley, and east-
west traffic passed through Piru. After the 1920s, little growth occurred in Piru. The
Piru Lake and recreational area was created in the 1950s in Piru Canyon. The main
local industry continues to be agriculture.
47
In the latest U.S. census Piru had a
population of approximately 1,200 people and 68% of its population was of Hispanic or
Latino origin.
48

Oxnard
Oxnard is located on an alluvial plain with rich agricultural soil and the most
extensive level surface in Ventura County. Its mediterranean climate is ideal for
growing tree and vegetable crops. In nearby San Buenaventura a Spanish mission
was established in 1782, and by 1833, the Spanish began rewarding their soldiers and
civil servants by awarding large grants of land. In 1837 Rancho Rio de Santa Clara or
La Colonia was granted to eight soldiers who had served with the Santa Barbara
Company. Each soldier held an undivided interest in the 44,833 acre ranch located
south of the Santa Clara River adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.
In 1864 Thomas Bard purchased 32,000 of the 44,833 acre Rancho Rio de
Santa Clara or La Colonia for Thomas Scott, acting U.S. Secretary of War, Vice-
President of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and an oilman. He purchased this property,
along with five other Ventura ranchos, in order to exploit their oil potential.
Bard eventually became the largest landowner of La Colonia. In 1867
Christian Borchard, a native of Germany, purchased 1,000 acres of Rancho La
Colonia from Jose Lobero. Borchard is credited with being the first farmer on La
23

Colonia. During the early 1870s, portions of La Colonia were sold to Jacob and
Gotfried Maulhardt and Johannes Borchard.
To serve their shipping and supply needs, the town of Point Hueneme was
established in 1869 and a wharf was constructed in 1871. Between 1871 and 1900
farmers settled on La Colonia and shipped their products through the Hueneme Wharf.
The town of Hueneme grew slowly as a merchant class evolved and the shipping
trades were established.
Through the 1880s barley was the predominant crop raised by farmers. The
sugar beet made its debut as a new crop when Johannes Borchard planted the first
sugar beets for use as livestock feed. In 1895, he and Albert Maulhardt obtained seed
from the Chino Sugar Beet Refinery and a test of five acres was set out in 1896.
Shortly thereafter, Maulhardt and the Oxnard brothers persuaded a large number of
farmers to plant beets, which resulted in the end of large-scale grain raising.
By 1897, 225 tons of beets a day were shipped through Montalvo and a
Ventura Beet Growers Union had been formed. That same year, the Dingley Tariff Act
helped promote domestic sugar by establishing a tariff on imported sugar, resulting in
the construction of thirty-six new sugar refineries throughout the United States. With
the passage of this tariff, Henry and Robert Oxnard began construction of the Pacific
Beet Sugar Company plant in the town of Oxnard. Four Oxnard brothers were
involved in the sugar industry, and they had previously built two factories in Nebraska
and one in Chino, California. In 1899 all four of the Oxnard brothers’ factories were
incorporated under the American Beet Sugar Company name. In 1934, American
Beet changed its name to the American Crystal Sugar Company.
Near the factory site, a passenger and freight depot was built adjacent to the
railroad tracks in 1898. The railroads in the area played an important role in
24

transporting sugar beets. The railroad also benefited the construction of the Oxnard
factory and the establishment of the town, as well as allowed for the marketing of other
regional agricultural goods.
Recognizing the need for housing and services for the beet sugar factory and
its employees, the Colonia Improvement Company was established that same year to
lay out a town site west of the factory. The town of Oxnard was laid out around a
square using a grid system bounded by A Street on the east, D Street on the west,
Fourth Street on the north, and Sixth Street on the south; the boundaries expanded
one year later. Housing was built rapidly to accommodate the growing workforce.
Many buildings were moved in from Hueneme and Saticoy to meet the shortage.
Hastily erected canvas tents and cabins were put up to alleviate the acute housing
shortage, with as many as five occupying a city lot.
Oxnard grew rapidly after 1898. J.R. Gabbert, Secretary of the Board of
Trade, wrote in 1912 that “Oxnard has a greater freight business over the Southern
Pacific than all the other cities combined between San Luis Obispo and Los Angeles.
In fact the receipts from freight shipments at this little city rank fifth among all the coast
shipping points.” At this time, $4 million worth of sugar beets were being processed
each year, and nearly as much in lima bean crops.
The construction of the sugar beet factory encouraged farmers to plant sugar
beets, and this crop, when rotated with lima beans and barley, remained the principal
cash crop for farmers on the Oxnard Plain for close to fifty years. The sugar beet
factory provided housing for its Mexican workers on Fifth Street near the factory.
Mexican families were also known to have settled in the area near Fifth and Meta
Streets and northeast of downtown Oxnard in La Colonia. One of the city’s oldest
neighborhoods, La Colonia was previously known as Colonia Gardens, the land
25

belonging to Anglo farmers before it was subdivided and sold to some of Oxnard’s
long standing Latino families starting in the 1920s. The neighborhood boasted of its
own newspaper, La Voz del La Colonia. Mexican businesses in the area included
barber shops, billiard halls, grocery stores and hotels catering to Mexicans. By 1948,
the population of Colonia Gardens was up to 8,000.
49

In 1950 Oxnard became the largest city in Ventura County and continues to be
to this day. The sugar beet factory was demolished in the late 1950s as the industry
moved elsewhere, but growers transitioned to row crops and lemons. Agriculture
remains a viable industry on the Oxnard Plain, with strawberries taking over as the
leading row crop.
50
The latest U.S. census shows Oxnard having a population of
approximately 170,400 people with 66% of its population being of Hispanic or Latino
origin.
51

Given that agriculture has been such a significant industry in Ventura County,
the growth of Mexican communities in the region is largely related to immigrant farm
workers. Farm workers who once shuttled in and out of the United States both un-
documented and through a mode such as the Bracero Program, settled in the areas in
which they worked, changing the face of their communities.
52

26

Figure 13: The communities of Fillmore, Piru, and Oxnard in Ventura County, CA
Source: Google Earth, May 10, 2009

Farm Worker Housing and Bracero Camps in Ventura County
Author Gilbert Gonzalez states that labor history in the citrus industry parallels
labor history in California agriculture. The several stages of the development of citrus
generally corresponded to one minority nationality performing the bulk of the picking
labor. Before the Mexican became the dominant laborer in the region’s fields, Chinese
and Japanese agricultural laborers were typically used in the late 19
th
and early 20
th

century. However, they dramatically decreased in number after anti-immigration
legislation was passed due to pressures from American citizens. These included the
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the Gentleman’s Agreement of 1907 and the
Immigration Act of 1924, which curtailed Chinese and Japanese immigration.
53

In Mexico, the economic development policies of Porfirio Diaz in the early
twentieth century and the revolutionary war led to large numbers of Mexicans
emigrating during the 1910s and 1920s to escape landlessness, high unemployment,
27

violence, inflation, and a disruption in food supplies. As the California agriculture
market was expanding and production was stimulated by World War I, Mexican labor
was extensively recruited and transported throughout the Southwest.
54
As Mexicans
succeeded the Japanese, a new social factor emerged in the labor market: Mexicans
migrated with their families, not as single men. Consequently, between 1905 and
1920, growers adjusted by establishing picker quarters with a new character. The
Japanese male bunkhouse community disappeared and communities of Mexican
families emerged. By 1920, the labor policy of many local grower associations
included the construction of housing and social programs for Mexican families.
55

Ventura County’s extensive agriculture industry provided employment for many
Mexican farm workers. Beginning in 1910, the sizeable Limoneira Ranch to the west
of Fillmore established farm worker camps for Mexican families. Between the 1910s
and 1930s, nine camps were built throughout the citrus groves and along the
barrancas (a term used for a ravine or waterway and the banks on either side).
56
One
example from the 1920s consisted of small cottages made of single wall, board and
batten construction, with somewhat steeply pitched gable roofs and overhanging
eaves. The Mexican homes were described as each having two bedrooms, 18’ by 22’,
with three to five rooms total. Each house was supplied with water, an outhouse in the
rear, and at some of the camps community shower baths were provided. The ranch
charged no rent; the only obligation was that a laborer be available for work at any
time during the year.
57

By contrast, the dormitories built in 1922-23 for Limoneira’s white male workers
included full plumbing, a club house with dining room and bowling alley, and a pool.
However, by 1934, the Mexican camps were upgraded with electricity, indoor hot and
cold running water and a built-in bathroom.
58
A school for the children was located on
28

land donated by the ranch where Americanization classes, including hygiene,
sanitation, English, and American institutions were taught.
59
Children of farm workers
were commonly taken to work in the fields alongside their parents before and after
school. This was concerning because the children were chastised for coming to
school unclean, and children would sometimes miss class to participate in harvests.
60

Figure 14: Housing for Mexican families provided by the Limoneira Ranch, 1920s.
Source: “The Role of Gender in Citrus Employment”.

Similarly, in Oxnard, in 1917 the American Crystal Sugar Company provided
housing for their field workers in three rows of adobe dwellings just north of the sugar
factory on Fifth Street. The homes were in a minimally desirable area of town, across
the street from a packing house, surrounded by railroad tracks, and in between the
Associated Oil Company and the Southern California Edison electric sub-station.
Each structure appears to be a pair of homes sharing a party wall. They were
constructed of adobe blocks with a whitewashed finish, and had low-pitched roofs and
overhanging eaves. The façades were symmetrical with two doors, two windows and
two vents. Like the Limoneira housing, they accommodated entire families, as seen in
Figure 15. The adobes were demolished by 1939.
61

29

Figure 15: Housing for Mexican families provided by the American Crystal Sugar
Company. Source: Beans, Beets & Babies.

Rancho Sespe, just outside of Fillmore, had a Mexican village which consisted
of approximately 125-150 single family homes. In his essay “The Camps of Mexican
Citrus Pickers in Southern California,” Gilbert Gonzalez explains that the ranch
furnished the land along with free water piped to each lot and the Mexicans built their
own houses, with the size depending on the family. After viewing photographs
appearing in the California Citrograph, Gonzalez describes the location of the village
as undesirable, the housing resembling rural shacktowns inferior to the white persons’
housing.
Comparatively, this was likely true, however, Vincent Perez, whose grandfather
lived at the village, remembers it as a thriving community built above the banks of the
Sespe River amid orange and lemon tree groves, filled with well-tended homes and
gardens. Perez’s aunt once described it as “a little paradise…completely isolated from
the American community five miles away…a place where the skies were clear, the air
fresh, the nearby mountains high and majestic…”
62

Also, in 1918, University of California Riverside professor Archibald D. Shamel
deemed the Rancho Sespe cottages among the best housing facilities while he was
studying employee-sponsored citrus camps for a series of illustrated articles.
63

30

Figure 16: Housing for Mexican families provided at Rancho Sespe, 1918. Photo by
Archibald D. Shamel. Source: Photographing Farmworkers in California.

Ventura County history has seen many occurrences of farm workers organizing
and strike activity. Unfortunately, grower or company-owned housing has often been
used against farm workers in such disputes. The largest farm labor strike in Ventura
County history up until its time occurred from January through July of 1941. The
events are reported by several sources. Among the farm workers’ demands were the
right of collective bargaining, an hourly wage increase, and payment for “wet time”,
believing that inclement weather losses should be shared between workers and the
growers. The American Federal of Labor successfully organized farm workers from
Santa Paula, Saticoy, Hueneme, Camarillo, Moorpark and Fillmore, with an estimated
4,000 to 6,000 pickers, packers and canners involved at the peak of the strike.
The strikers’ demands were denied. Charles C. Teague, director of the
Limoneira Ranch and a leader among the area citrus growers, refused to meet with
union leaders claiming that most growers could not afford to pay wage increases. He
refused to accept unionized farm labor in the county.

31

Following through on their threats, the growers exacerbated the situation by
evicting hundreds to thousands of striking farm workers from their company-owned
homes. Many of them had resided in these camps for decades. The Santa Paula
area farm workers set up camp in Steckel Park and dubbed it “Teagueville”. The
Ventura Star Free Press reported that the workers were living under awnings, huts
fashioned from corrugated iron and boards, a few tents, and, in many instances, the
blue sky.
64

This dramatic and lengthy strike was one factor setting the stage for the appeal
to contract foreign workers, resulting in the initiation of the Bracero Program the
following year. Regrettably, this also resulted in the loss of jobs and homes for
domestic workers, who spent years thereafter in the struggle to obtain sufficient work,
decent wages and regain their place in the industry.
A different typology of farm worker housing became widespread throughout the
county in mid-century, distinct from the kind of housing that had been established for
families by Limoneira, Rancho Sespe and the American Sugar Beet Company. With
the enormous influx of braceros, growers and co-operative associations constructed
new camps or sometimes modified existing housing sites to accommodate the single
men.
By the 1950s, the shortage of family housing throughout California reflected
the replacement of domestic and family labor by braceros. Ernesto Galarza gives
examples in which family housing was closed, demolished, reconditioned, or otherwise
unavailable in San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Merced Counties.
65

To be as economically efficient as possible, the facilities provided for braceros
maximized the amount of farm workers housed. The single male bracero usually
shared a room, or shared a large space in a dormitory building with many others.
32

They shared lavatories and dining facilities. This housing typology differed from earlier
single family residences.
The 2008 Ventura County General Plan lists fourteen state-licensed farm
worker camps known in the county.
66
Of these, eleven provide family housing and
three are for individuals only, that is, single male laborers. Some of the current stock
of farm worker housing is contemporary, but camps from the bracero era still exist
throughout the county. In this thesis, five examples of bracero camps were studied in
the cities of Fillmore, Piru and Oxnard, including three from the county’s list, and two
not on the list.
67

It is noted that the camps today are inconspicuous, located in isolated and
somewhat undesirable places. The land they now occupy would have been more rural
before modern development absorbed area farmland. The camps usually are not near
amenities such as shopping centers and often are not provided with simple
infrastructure such as sidewalks. Their setting commonly includes the grouping of
camp buildings with the cultivated fields, packinghouses and railways nearby.

33

Chapter 1 Endnotes

1
Richard B. Craig, The Bracero Program: Interest Groups and Foreign Policy. (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1971), p. 6.

2
Craig, The Bracero Program, p. 39.
Erasmo Gamboa, Mexican Labor and World War II: Braceros in the Pacific Northwest,
1942-1947, (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000), pp. 27, 28, 35.
“Why Braceros?” Produced for the Council of California Growers by Wilding-Butler
Division of Wilding, Inc., San Francisco. Prelinger Collection Archives,
http://www.archive.org/details/WhyBrace1959 (Accessed on July 5, 2009).

3
Craig, The Bracero Program, pp. 37-38.

4
Ernesto Galarza. Merchants of Labor, The Mexico Bracero Story. Charlotte: McNally
& Loftin, 1964, pp. 73-74.

5
Galarza, Merchants of Labor, pp. 39-40.

6
Galarza, Merchants of Labor, p. 53.

7
Craig, The Bracero Program, p. 50.

8
Galarza, Merchants of Labor, p. 51.

9
Galarza, Merchants of Labor, p. 51.

10
Craig, The Bracero Program, pp. 65-66.

11
Galarza, Merchants of Labor, p. 243.

12
Craig, The Bracero Program, pp. 13-16.

13
Craig, The Bracero Program, p. 17.

14
Luiz Ruiz Zamudio, interview by author for the Smithsonian’s Bracero History
Project, Long Beach, California, March 23, 2008.

15
The Bracero Program and Its Aftermath, An Historical Summary, prepared for the
use of The Assembly Committee on Agriculture, April 1, 1965, p. 7. Calisphere,
The Regents of the University of California,
http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt4n39n6zx&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_te
xt (Accessed on September 7, 2009).

16
Craig, The Bracero Program, pp. 19-21.

34

17
Gilbert Gonzalez, Guest Workers or Colonized Labor? Mexican Labor Migration to
the United States. (Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers, 2006), p. 57.

18
Galarza, Merchants of Labor, p. 81.
Gonzalez, Guest Workers or Colonized Labor?, pp. 61, 69.

19
Galarza, Merchants of Labor, p. 244.

20
Luis Ruiz Zamudio, interview by author for the Smithsonian’s Bracero History
Project, Long Beach, California, March 23, 2008.

21
Galarza, Merchants of Labor, p. 178-179.
The Bracero Program and Its Aftermath, An Historical Summary, prepared for the use
of The Assembly Committee on Agriculture, April 1, 1965, p. 10. Calisphere,
The Regents of the University of California,
http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt4n39n6zx&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_te
xt (Accessed on September 7, 2009).

22
Howard R. Rosenberg, “Snapshots in a Farm Labor Tradition”, Labor Management
Decisions 3, no. 1 (Winter-Spring 1993), Berkeley: University of California, pp. 1-2.
http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/lmd/html/winterspring_93/snapshots.html
(Accessed on April 19, 2009).

23
Raul Hernandez, interview by author for the Smithsonian’s Bracero History Archive
project, Fillmore, California, July 12, 2008.

24
Luiz Ruiz Zamudio, interview by author for the Smithsonian’s Bracero History
Archive project, Long Beach, California, March 23, 2008.

25
Rosenberg, “Snapshots in a Farm Labor Tradition”, p.1.
See also http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/lmd/html/winterspring_93/snapshots.html
and http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/lmd/html/winterspring_93/gallery.html
(Accessed on April 19, 2009).

26
Photograph of braceros being fumigated with DDT. This photograph and
accompanying caption are from the Leonard Nadel collection and are available on the
National Museum of American History website:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_441.html (Accessed July 4,
2009).

27
Photograph of braceros being fumigated with DDT. This photograph and
accompanying caption are from the Leonard Nadel collection and are available on the
National Museum of American History website:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_441.html (Accessed July 4,
2009).

35

28
Photograph titled “First Braceros”, ca. 1942. Dorothea Lange Collection: The War
Years (1942-1944) Office of War Information (OWI) Braceros. Oakland Museum of
California. The Online Archive of California,
http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft7h4nb2gt/?brand=oac (Accessed on July 5, 2009).

29
“Why Braceros?” Produced for the Council of California Growers by Wilding-Butler
Division of Wilding, Inc., San Francisco. Prelinger Collection Archives,
http://www.archive.org/details/WhyBrace1959 (Accessed on July 5, 2009).

30
Gonzalez, Guest Workers or Colonized Labor?, p. 103.

31
Fred Ross, Conquering Goliath: Cesar Chavez at the Beginning. (Keene, California:
El Taller Grafico, 1989), pp. 31-32, 56, 67.

32
National Museum of American History.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_441.html (Accessed on July
15, 2009).

33
Ventura County Crop Report 2007 and Farm Bureau of Ventura County,
http://www.farmbureauvc.com/crop_report.html (Accessed July 25, 2009).

34
Judith Triem and Mitch Stone. Ventura County Cultural Heritage Survey Phase VI:
Santa Clara Valley, August 1999, p. 4. Prepared by San Buenaventura Research
Associates for the Ventura County Planning Department,
http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/programs/SurveyReport.pdf (Accessed on
November 29, 2008).

35
Richard Mines and Anzaldua, Ricardo. “New Migrants vs. Old Migrants: Alternative
Labor Market Structures in the California Citrus Industry”, Monographs in U.S. –
Mexican Studies 9, (San Diego: University of California at San Diego, 1982), pp. 3-3a,
6, 11-12.

36
The Bracero Program and Its Aftermath, An Historical Summary, prepared for the
use of The Assembly Committee on Agriculture, April 1, 1965, pp. 5-6. Calisphere,
The Regents of the University of California,
http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt4n39n6zx&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_te
xt (Accessed on September 7, 2009).

37
Galarza, Merchants of Labor, p. 156.

38
Triem and Stone, Ventura County Cultural Heritage Survey Phase VI: Santa Clara
Valley, p. 4.

39
For a progressive discussion on the causes of Mexican immigration to the U.S. and
the political and economic relationship between the two countries, see A Century of
Chicano History: Empire, Nations and Migration by Gilbert G. Gonzalez and Raul A.
Fernandez.

36

40
Farm Bureau of Ventura County, http://www.farmbureauvc.com/crop_report.html
(Accessed on September 5, 2009).

41
Martha Menchaca. The Mexican Outsiders: A Community History of Marginalization
and Discrimination in California. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), p. 130.
42
Triem and Stone. Ventura County Cultural Heritage Survey Phase VI: Santa Clara
Valley, p. 3.

43
Fillmore 1888-1988, (Fillmore, California: Fillmore Historical Society, 1989), p. 2.

44
Merlo, Catherine, Beyond the Harvest, The History of the Fillmore-Piru Citrus
Association, 1897-1997, Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association, 1997, pp. 32-33.

45
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 40.

46
“Fillmore History 1888-2000”, Heritage Valley Tourism,
http://www.heritagevalley.net/history_HeritageValleyTourism.htm (Accessed on May
16, 2009).
Population figure from 2000 Census data on American Factfinder, U.S. Census
Bureau,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContex
t=&_street=&_county=fillmore&_cityTown=fillmore&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=
en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y (Accessed on May
12, 2009).

47
The history of the community of Piru is excerpted from the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for CEDC Valle Naranjal Farmworker Housing Project, prepared by
Rincon Consultants, April 2009, pp. 4.2-2, 4.2-3.

48
Population figure from 2000 Census data on American Factfinder, U.S. Census
Bureau,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContex
t=&_street=&_county=piru&_cityTown=piru&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_s
se=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y (Accessed on May 12,
2009).

49
Jeffrey W. Maulhardt, Beans, Beets & Babies: The Second Generation of Farming
Families and the History of the Sugar Factory. (Northridge, California: MOBOOKS,
2001), p. 294.

50
The history of the community of Oxnard is adapted from the Downtown Oxnard
Historic Resources Survey, Final Report, prepared by San Buenaventura Research
Associates, July 2005, pp. 8-14.
See also “Historical Timeline: A Story of Progress”, the American Crystal Sugar
Company, http://www.crystalsugar.com/coopprofile/coop3.history.asp (Accessed on
September 7, 2009).

37

51
Population figure from 2000 Census data on American Factfinder, U.S. Census
Bureau,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=16000US065
7372&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C16000US0657372&_street=&_cou
nty=oxnard&_cityTown=oxnard&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&Activ
eGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_n
ame=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_i
ndustry= (Accessed on May 12, 2009).

52
Alfonso Guilin, et al., “Immigration and the Changing face of Ventura County”, paper
presented at the “Changing Face” seminar, April 4-5, 2002 in Oxnard, California.
Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics,
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/changingface.html (Accessed on November 28,
2008).

53
Gilbert Gonzalez, “Labor and Community: The Camps of Mexican Citrus Pickers in
Southern California”, The Western Historical Quarterly 22, no. 3 (August 1991), p.
294.
“A History of Japanese Americans in California: Immigration”, Five Views: An Ethnic
Historic Site Survey for California. An online book by The National Park Service,
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/5views/5views4a.htm (Accessed on
July 24, 2009).

54
Margo McBane, “The Role of Gender in Citrus Employment: A Case Study of
Recruitment, Labor, and Housing Patterns at the Limoneira Company, 1893 to 1940”,
California History 74, no. 1 (Spring 1995), p. 74.
Gonzalez, “Labor and Community”, p. 294.

55
Gonzalez, “Labor and Community”, p. 294.

56
McBane, “The Role of Gender in Citrus Employment”, p. 79.
Judith Triem and Mitch Stone. Historic Resources Report East Area 1 Specific Plan
EIR Santa Paula, California. Prepared by San Buenaventura Research Associates,
November 8, 2007, p. 15.

57
McBane, “The Role of Gender in Citrus Employment”, p. 79.
Gonzalez, “Labor and Community”, p. 295.

58
McBane, “The Role of Gender in Citrus Employment”, p. 80.

59
Gonzalez, “Labor and Community”, p. 295.

60
Dionicio Morales. Dionicio Morales: A Life in Two Cultures. (Houston: Pinata Books,
a division of Arte Publico Press, 1997), p. 54.
Richard Steven Street, Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California
Farmworkers, 1769-1913. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), p. 452.

38

61
Maulhardt, Beans, Beets & Babies, p. 293.
1929 Sanborn Insurance Map of Oxnard, pages 4 and 10.
1930, 1937, 1938 and 1939-40 Oxnard Directories

62
Vincent Anthony Perez, Remembering the Hacienda: History and Memory in the
Mexican American Southwest. (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006),
p. 195.

63
Richard Steven Street, Photographing Farmworkers in California. (Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press, 2004), p. 63.

64
Triem and Stone, Historic Resources Report East Area 1 Specific Plan EIR, p. 16.
Menchaca, Mexican Outsiders, pp. 84-89.

65
Ernesto Galarza, Farm Workers and Agri-Business in California, 1947-1960. (Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), p. 64.

66
Ventura County General Plan Land Use Appendix, December 16, 2008, pp. 57-58.

67
The 2008 Ventura County General Plan identified one other state-licensed farm
worker camp in Piru, the Piru Square Camp. It is described as a six unit facility for up
to fifteen individuals. It is located at 665 Piru Square across the street from the Piru
train depot and gazebo. It is smaller than the other camps studied, both in the quantity
and size of the buildings. Visual assessment of the property and aerial photographs
reveal five very small cottages in a single row (one may not be visible due to foliage).
They are virtually identical in size and form. They are rectangular in footprint and have
low-pitched gable roofs on which sheets of roofing material appear to be tacked on.
The exterior cladding appears to be asbestos siding. Although not entirely visible from
the street, each building seems to have two single door entrances and two rectangular
windows.
County assessor’s records date the earliest building on the property to the 1920s.
Mary Guevara, former operator of El Campito de Piru, confirms that the dormitory
buildings were already present when she arrived in the community of Piru in 1946.
She recalls approximately six to eight Filipino families living there at that time. She
also states that the camp has always been small, only a few units. Permit records for
the property are scarce, as building permits were not required in this area in the
1920s.
39

Chapter 2: El Campito Bracero Camp in Fillmore, California

The Fillmore camp is affectionately known as “El Campito” or somewhat
derogatorily as “El Hoyo”, which in Spanish means “the hole”. It was built upon a
depressed area of land which is believed by some to have previously been used as a
source of gravel and then filled in.
1
The camp is at 743 ½ Sespe Avenue. It is
occupied by unaccompanied male farm workers who are housed four to eight men per
barrack. The camp averages about 130 farm workers with a maximum of about 170
allowed at any one time. The owner provides beds and lockers for storage of personal
items. The men can bring in their own televisions, radios or miniature refrigerators.
Two buildings provide community lavatories, sinks and showers. The farm workers
eat breakfast and dinner at the mess hall and have lunches prepared that can be
taken out to the fields.
According to Beyond the Harvest: The History of the Fillmore-Piru Citrus
Association 1897-1997, the association purchased 11 ½ acres of land in 1919 and the
following year, it built forty-two houses for pickers and packinghouse employees just
west of its office at Sespe Avenue and A Street.
2
By that description, it is assumed
that the houses were single family residences, not barracks, which would be
appropriate for a labor force that may have included men, women and children. The
description of a 11 ½ acre site does not match the size of the current site of El
Campito. The property could have been later subdivided, or the original site of the
association’s farm worker housing may have been elsewhere near the packinghouse.
Fillmore Citrus Association and Fillmore Lemon Association evidently each had
a half-interest in El Campito.
3
In 1931, the original Fillmore Citrus Fruit Association
separated its orange and lemon operations due to high volume, becoming the Fillmore
40

Citrus Association and the Fillmore Lemon Association. (The Fillmore Citrus
Association later became the Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association upon merging with Piru
Citrus in 1971. The Fillmore Lemon Association became the Saticoy Lemon
Association after the two merged in 1962.)
4

The packing houses for Fillmore Citrus and Fillmore Lemon existed close to the
bracero camp at opposite corners of Sespe Avenue and A Street. The associations
arranged the contracting of the braceros for their member growers. Members in the
Fillmore Citrus Fruit Association ranged from 40-50 growers in 1899 to 186 growers in
1924, to 340 growers in 1931 for Fillmore Citrus and Fillmore Lemon combined.
(Numbers are less clear after the separation of the orange and lemon operations).
5

Housing for their bracero labor force was provided at El Campito in accordance with
the government agreement at no cost to the workers. A portion of the braceros’ pay
was deducted for meals, and the association paid the catering staff, which was the
Villasenor family.
Catherine Merlo has written that, “In 1941, the Fillmore-Citrus Association and
the Fillmore Lemon Association spent $6,500 to enlarge its labor camp just west of its
offices at Sespe Avenue and A Street.”
6
Building permits for the El Campito property
indicate that some of the buildings were moved onto the site from another location.
The earliest building permit is dated March 1, 1943. It was issued to move eight
houses from the Mexican camp to the phill [sic]. Occurring shortly after the first
braceros began entering the United States, which happened in September of 1942,
7

this suggests that the first buildings at El Campito were relocated and adapted for the
bracero workforce at the expense of another group of farm workers, foreshadowing
the controversial existence that the Bracero Program would have in the future.

41

Russell Hardison, president of Fillmore Citrus and later Fillmore-Piru Citrus
stated in Beyond the Harvest:
From our point of view, the Bracero program was very good and it was
also good for the community. They were single men who’d come up here,
and we could house them in our dormitory, feed them well, pay them the
prevailing wage. They came up on contracts. The men were screened
down there [in Mexico], and were pretty good pickers. We didn’t have any
problems. When their contract was up, they went back to Mexico and took
some money with them. While here, they’d send money home.
8

It is known that the braceros became an indispensable source of labor for the
growers. Braceros benefited from their earnings to provide for themselves their and
families when they may not have had the same opportunity for work in their home
country. What is not known with the same surety is whether the braceros were indeed
fed well and paid the prevailing wage as Hardison stated. However, with knowledge of
the efforts put in by the Villasenor family (such as rising at two in the morning to begin
preparing daily meals), one would hope that the farm workers were at least well fed.
In September and in December of 1943, building permits were issued for the
erection of tent houses on the property; one permit described a cement foundation
with thirty 16’ x 16’ tents. The cooking and dining room measuring 34’ x 98’ (Building
3) was also constructed at the end of 1943. The tents were apparently used until
1948, when they were replaced with another dormitory building; its cost divided
equally between the Fillmore Citrus Association and the Fillmore Lemon Association.
9

A heater room, described as board and batten with galvanized iron roofing,
was added in 1959. In 1961, the Fillmore and Piru Citrus Associations created F & P
Growers Association, a separate organization specifically designed to provide labor for
the harvest of its grower members. This move took the picking operations away from
the packinghouse and handled them under another business entity. Researchers in

42

agricultural economics state that harvesting co-ops such as F & P were established to
insulate packing houses from employer responsibilities.
10

In 1969, in place of the currently existing Buildings 1 and 2, nine buildings
existed on the western portion of the property. There were two parallel rows of four
nearly square buildings with a smaller rectangular building in between the rows. It is
possible that the eight buildings in two rows were the original buildings moved onto the
site in 1943. The configuration of the remainder of the camp buildings was the same
as it is today. In June of 1974 Building 2 was erected, described as a 1,440 square
foot recreation hall, constructed with wood and masonry and a composition shingle
roof. By 1978, the western portion of the site contained a single row of five or six
small dorm buildings and the currently existing Buildings 1 and 2.
Albert Villasenor, the current owner of the camp, stated that he personally
demolished the small dormitories in approximately in the late 1970s. Albert’s father
Herculano instructed him, a teenager at the time, to have the five or six additional
small dorm buildings that existed on the western edge of property demolished by the
time Herculano returned from an extended vacation. The Villasenor’s had
experienced problems with squatters sneaking into the buildings, as they were on the
outskirts of the property and could be accessed from doors facing the periphery of the
camp. Albert took to the wooden structures with hand tools and found them easy to
tear down; the more difficult task was the hauling away of the materials.
In late 1978 work was performed to the roof trusses of an existing 3,400
square foot, one-story building. This is presumed to be Building 3, based on the
measurements and on a 1952 photograph of the interior of Building 3 which shows
exposed roof trusses and buttress supports across the width of the dining hall (Figure
37).
43

Interior drywall work to an unknown building was done in 1987, and a sewage
disposal system was added in 1989. The camp buildings existed in their current
configuration by 1994.
11
Due to the likelihood of some work being done without
permits and the imprecision of records for the property, the exact construction history
for each building cannot be traced.
12

Herculano Villasenor purchased El Campito from F & P Growers and the
Saticoy Lemon Association in 1979. He and his father, Ezequiel B. Villasenor, Sr. first
served as caterers for the camp, moved into management, and eventually ownership.
Ezequiel had operated a restaurant and tortilla-making business in Los Angeles in
approximately the late 1920s to early 1930s.
13
During the Depression years, Mexicans
were repatriated from many communities in the United States and returned to Mexico.
They were seen as a threat to the ability of United States citizens to secure jobs in
such difficult times. Tragically, many of the Mexicans forcibly sent over the border
were American-born and had every right to be in this country. But racism and
resentment were often stronger sentiments than legality and justice.
Some of Ezequiel’s customers had made their purchases on extended credit,
and as he saw more and more Mexicans departing, he decided to make a trip north to
the small town of Fillmore to collect a debt that was owed to him. Ezequiel noted that
this community lacked certain resources for its Mexican population. He decided to
leave Los Angeles. In 1932 he moved to Fillmore and opened a restaurant there. It
was initially located at the southwest corner of Central and Sespe Avenues and later
moved to the corner of Clay and Main Streets.
Subsequently, in 1942, the Fillmore Citrus Fruit Association approached
Ezequiel with a proposal to contract him to cook meals for the camp which housed the
recently acquired bracero labor force.
14
Ezequiel agreed to it and closed his
44

restaurant, La Tapatia, to take on this new endeavor. The Villasenor family provided
meals for several of the camps in Ventura County. At one time, a building at 1320 E.
Main Street in Santa Paula was used for food production and warehousing.
15
From
there, it was distributed to the area camps or directly to the orchards when pickers
where harvesting the crop.
The Villasenor family eventually expanded from providing meal service to
managing El Campito, and later became owners. With their acquired expertise and
reputation, the Villasenors also took on the management of camps in Piru, Sespe,
Santa Paula, Somis, Tapo, and Moorpark.
16
Over the years it became a family
business. Ezequiel’s sons Herculano and Fidel, and grandson Albert, all at some time
worked in camp management and meal services in Ventura and Santa Barbara
counties over seven decades.
A “five and dime” store on the property sold necessities such as soap, sodas,
shirts and pants. It seems that this would have been a convenience given the
somewhat isolated nature of the camp, and so that farm workers would not have to
test their ability to communicate in English or handle foreign money in town. However,
these types of stores have also been criticized as limiting the braceros to purchasing
their necessities through the grower sponsored camp, at non-competitive or above
market prices. The store at El Campito is no longer in operation, but Building 15 which
contained the store, still exists on the property.
In 1945 German prisoners of war, who were referred to as “white Russians” by
some of the locals, were put to work in the area fields to help harvest the crops.
17

They were sent to El Campito for their meals, but were lodged at a camp in
neighboring Saticoy.
18
Enriqueta stated that a number of them spoke English, and it

45

seems that the camp staff became familiar with some of the POWs. Enriqueta
recalled that one man was an artist and painted a portrait for a family member of hers.
A labor stoppage involving farm workers at El Campito occurred during the
orange harvest in July of 1970. Pickers under contract with F & P Growers walked out
of an orchard demanding to know their piece rates at the start of the work day, a
minimum hourly wage, improved sanitary conditions, vacation benefits, and the
appointment of an assistant field boss to improve communication between the workers
and the association’s management.
19
Organizers with the United Farm Workers
(UFW) became involved and soon after picket lines had formed at the packinghouses
of the Fillmore Citrus Association, Saticoy Lemon Association, and the Ventura County
Fruit Growers.
Close to 500 workers, between pickers and packinghouse employees, were
estimated to have participated in the strike and walkout. Fillmore’s packinghouse was
the packinghouse most affected. Union members blocked the gate at El Campito.
20

Protesters also came to the camp during the night and threw down curved spike strips
so that the vehicles that transported the farm workers would run over them in the
morning and the workers would not be able to go out to the fields. Albert’s father,
Herculano, arrived early to the camp every day to prepare breakfast for the men, and
consequently, he was the one to drive over the spike strips, damaging all four of his
vehicle’s tires. Albert also recalls that a type of molotov cocktail was thrown through
one of the farm worker’s dormitory windows. Fortunately, the man was awakened by
the commotion and with help was able to extinguish the fire.
21
The Villasenor family
was also sent “nasty letters” in which they were accused of trying to take advantage of
the farm workers.
22

46

The strike reportedly ended in disarray, as the farm workers in Fillmore could
not obtain the support of the farm workers at the Piru camp, despite the appearance of
Cesar Chavez on the picket lines. Fillmore workers returned to work and the
settlement at the termination of the strike was based on a vacation package that the
citrus industry’s employers had already planned months earlier.
23

Grower representatives also addressed their citrus pickers by writing a letter
which stated their viewpoint. Merlo reports it to have read:
Ever since there has been a citrus industry, the earnings of the workers
have been constantly increasing to the point that we as growers pay
some of the highest agricultural wages in the state of California. What is
more, we have been offering you, the workers, without cost, fringe
benefits such as medical and health insurance, life insurance and annual
vacations. Housing is also offered at reasonable rent. Now the outside
interests pretend to ‘offer’ you benefits and high wages without telling
you at the same time that they would have to deduct a certain percentage
from your wages, as dues, for something that you have been receiving
free…We the growers, even more so than these outsiders, know that
without you there would be no citrus industry in this county. Because you
are important people to us, we provide you with more fringe benefits than
any other agricultural workers.
24

Fearing a concerted UFW organizing drive, lemon producers formed their own
organization to combat unionization in the lemon harvest a few months after these
events.
25

The Villasenors and Cabrillo Village
In 1975, Herculano was offered the opportunity to purchase Cabrillo Village, a
farm labor camp in Saticoy, west of Fillmore. The camp was built in 1936 by the
Saticoy Lemon Growers Association, planned for single men. There were 90 to 100
dormitories, most under 500 square feet. The construction was described as single-
wall construction with board and batten siding over two-by-two stud framing. Over the
decades the housing became cramped as large families took up long term residence

47

versus the original transitory single men. The company maintained an office on the
site, yet the camp buildings had also been allowed to deteriorate.
26

In early October 1974, Cabrillo Village’s farm workers had walked out on the
local lemon growers S & F, demanding higher wages and improved working
conditions. The leaders in this protest solicited farm workers in other labor camps
across the county to join in striking. For ten days, the strike remained at a standoff
with S & F management refusing to meet with the strike leaders and workers alleging
that the association had hired undocumented workers to break the strike. The
administration hoped to break the impasse by replacing their Anglo manager with a
Mexican: Miguel Ramos. After overcoming the strikers’ initial mistrust, Miguel got
bargaining sessions underway and an agreement was reached by the end of October.
The relations between management and the farm workers remained calm for
about a year. However, when S & F ignored certain settlement terms, the farm
workers began a second organizing drive, this time with the assistance of the United
Farm Workers union. Miguel resigned in August of 1975, citing medical reasons. An
election to certify the United Farm Workers as representation was scheduled for
August 1975. A few weeks prior to this, the growers fired 190 workers and the
certification never took place. In October, all of Cabrillo Village’s residents were
served eviction notices.
27

The reason given for this was that inspectors found multiple violations at the
camp, including plumbing, sewer and electrical wiring, which the grower owners were
not willing to invest in repairing. It is believed that an underlying reason for the
growers was to disperse the farm workers in order to squash their unionization
attempts. After a visit to Cabrillo Village, Brother Martin Cornwell reported to the UFW
publication El Malcriadito the following:
48

There are two versions of the Cabrillo Village story. The ‘official’ story
has it that the State Department of Housing and Community Standards
ordered the houses to be brought up to code, or be closed. The owner,
Saticoy Lemon Association, and the lease holder, S&F Growers, seem-
ingly agree that it would cost too much…On Oct. 12, the approximately
400 people living at the labor camp were given notice to be out of the
camp by Nov. 10. The people who live at the camp claim that it is a
palace by comparison to most other labor camps. It didn’t look any worse
to me than lower-middle class housing in the Whittier area. The workers
are convinced that the only real reason for their eviction is their solidarity
and strong support for the UFW…The inhabitants feel that minor housing
deficiencies were exaggerated. As a final test of the owner’s sincerity,
they offered to do all of the repair work if the owner supplied the materials.
The response has been negative.
28

An offer of $500.00 relocation compensation would not take the Cabrillo Village
families very far. The camp was scheduled for demolition by the owners, but it was
also offered to Herculano for $80,000 as reported by one source. However, this option
was not received well by the residents and labor organizers. The Villasenor family
recounts that Herculano intended to repair or renovate the camp buildings as well as
single family houses on the periphery which he planned to rent out.
29
In a mild, one-
sided version of these events, it was written that:
Discovering the growers had actually signed an option to sell a private
buyer the entire village for $80,000, the workers shifted gears and began
a letter-writing and picketing campaign that eventually convinced the
potential new owner to abandon his plans.
30

Enriqueta Villasenor recounts that while working through the purchase
agreement, the Villasenor family received angry letters and even death threats.
Enriqueta hid them and burned them in the fireplace, as she did not want her children
to see the vicious words aimed at their family. She relayed that besides the local farm
workers and labor organizers, nuns were also among the protesters. A lifelong
Catholic, Enriqueta said at that point she lost some respect for the nuns because of
the maliciousness of the messages, whether written by or condoned by them.

49

After the sale of the camp to the Villasenor family was no longer an option, the
growers sent out a bulldozer to demolish vacant buildings as some residents had
accepted the compensation amount and moved out. Late in November of 1975, the
remaining residents took a stand against the growers and formed a human barrier to
block oncoming bulldozers. The bulldozer operator backed off and the farm workers
won a small victory. They eventually entered negotiations with the owners and formed
a deal to purchase the camp for the same $80,000 price that Herculano was
purportedly going to pay.
31

The outcome was quite an achievement for low-income farm workers who were
empowered to take charge of their futures. Forming a co-operative, the farm workers
were no longer living under the control of a capitalist entity, an agriculture business
that used them to enhance profits while only providing the minimal necessities for
subsistence. With the assistance of many concerned individuals and groups, plus a
unique combination of financing, the Cabrillo Village camp buildings were remodeled
and additional new units were constructed. Interestingly however, the original
residents - now owners - preferred the old housing. Although they participated in
design discussions with the architect for the new units (John Mutlow of the Mutlow-
Dimster partnership), when they were completed, the residents chose to stay in their
older, remodeled homes. One belief is that the residents preferred the detached-style
homes over the new attached residences.
32

After the termination of the Bracero Program in 1964, some of the camps
continued to operate, populated by native and immigrant farm workers. Although a
young man at the time, Albert Villasenor believes that during the 1970s, due to the
advancement of the farm worker movement and resulting escalation in strike activity,
area growers chose to discontinue providing housing for the workers. As farm workers
50

won hard-fought battles for improvements in their industry, growers figuratively dodged
bullets by abandoning responsibilities they historically held. Camps began to be
closed or sold and Herculano and Albert eventually came to manage only the Fillmore
camp as when their family first started out in the business.
Today, Enriqueta Villasenor feels that some of the widespread criticisms about
the Bracero Program were not valid. Common complaints included unsafe housing,
deficient food being served, and poor access to medical care in case of illness or
injury. Enriqueta believes this was not the case in the camps she was familiar with,
and that braceros were well tended to. This sentiment was echoed by Robert
Borrego, whose parents had managed a bracero camp in neighboring Santa Paula.
33

The government gave the braceros provisions that did not exist for the native workers.
This of course was a major issue for the American-born labor force and an impetus for
the farm worker movement, leading to the termination of the Bracero Program and the
eventual closing or sale of many of the camps.
Building Descriptions

The current site plan of El Campito includes nine dormitories both in a barrack
style and with a smaller floorplan, a kitchen and dining hall building, a laundry facility,
two community lavatories, and several storage buildings.

51

Figure 17: Site Plan of El Campito Source: Google Earth, May 6, 2009

Building 1 Storage
Building 2 Partial Storage and Partial Dormitory
Building 3 Kitchen and Dining Room
Building 4 Small Storage
Building 5 Small Dormitory
Building 6 Small Dormitory
Building 7 Small Dormitory
Building 8 Small Dormitory
Building 9 Large Dormitory
Building 10 Lavatories
Building 11 Large Dormitory

52

Building 12 Large Dormitory
Building 13 Laundry and Lavatories
Building 14 Large Dormitory
Building 15 Large Dormitory
The majority of the buildings are sheathed in plyboard with vertical battens, a
building technique typically used for inexpensive or impermanent structures. At least
one building includes masonry walls. Some of the buildings sit on concrete slab
foundations while some are on concrete block footings. All of the buildings have low
pitched roofs with overhanging eaves. Most of the buildings have a solid entry door
with a screened door on the exterior. This allows the workers to open their interior
doors for ventilation but retain some privacy and protection with the screened door.
At the northern edge of the property, underneath the trees, there are benches
for the men to sit on and a brick fireplace. Partially due to the geography of the site,
the setting of the camp feels secluded and insulated. Also contributing to this is the
fact that the camp is in a non-residentially zoned area, surrounded by commercial and
industrial structures. The downward sloping road leading into the camp is not properly
paved or marked, and no sidewalk is provided.
A spur track for the railroad ran above the small slope at the northern boundary
of the property, passing the camp to arrive at the packing house just to the east. At
one time the railroad carried passengers and freight through the valley and two regular
daily trains passed through Fillmore. But as automobiles became more popular and
widely used, passenger train service decreased. On January 13, 1935, the last
passenger train stopped at the Fillmore station. The freight trains that carried the
crops of the region were later replaced by refrigerated trucks as well. In 1974, the
Southern Pacific Company closed down the Fillmore stop.
34

53

Figure 18: Brick fireplace at northwest corner of camp.

Building 1, at the northwest edge of the camp, is used for storage. The
building footprint is rectangular. The roof is medium-pitched and side gabled with
exposed rafters, and clad in composite shingle. A chimney-like masonry structure
forms the northern wall, interrupting the gable and resulting in a shed roof. A vent is
formed using patterned, punctured masonry blocks on the northern elevation. The
remainder of the building is sheathed in plyboard with vertical battens. It has no
fenestrations but there are two doors each on the east and west elevations: one
standard sized door and one larger door to accommodate sizeable items. There is a
large, square vent under the gable of the south elevation. The building is painted pea
green.

54

Figure 19: Building 1 North Elevation Figure 20: Building 1 South Elevation

Figure 21: Building 1, West Elevation Figure 22: Building 1, East Elevation

Building 2 is partially used for storage and partially as a dormitory. It was
originally a recreation hall when constructed in 1974 and not intended for use as
habitation, but Albert Villasenor states that the man who was temporarily housed in the
space has not wanted to move. The building footprint is rectangular; the roof is cross-
gabled with a low pitch, enclosed rafters, and clad in composite shingle. The walls are
constructed of masonry block. The north and south elevations both have a projecting
gabled porch supported by slender metal posts, under which are solid double doors.
55

The side and cross gables contain vertically placed wooden slats. Four windows on
the north and south elevations and two windows on the east and west elevations are
boarded shut and painted over. The building is painted pea green with white trim.

Figure 23: Building 2, North Elevation Figure 24: Building 2, South Elevation

Figure 25: Building 2, East Elevation Figure 26: Building 2, West Elevation

Building 3 is the kitchen and dining room. This wood-frame building has a
rectangular footprint and has a low-pitched roof with overhanging eaves and exposed
rafter tails, covered in composite shingle. The north elevation has regularly spaced
single-pane windows and two solid wooden entry doors. The south elevation has
matching windows and one solid wooden entry door. Two of the windows have been
partitioned at the bottom and are, or in the past were, probably used to pass things
56

through to someone standing outside the building. A large box, likely for mechanical
equipment, and a phone booth are against the wall on opposite ends of the building.
The west elevation includes two windows, a pair of double doors, and a metal roll-up
door. Again, one of the windows has been partitioned at the bottom. The east
elevation includes one window, a pair of double doors and many pipes to service the
cooking equipment in that end of the building. Ventilation equipment can also be seen
on the roof. The building is painted pea green with white trim.
The interior of the dining room contains two rows of picnic-like tables along the
length of the building. The table legs are painted pale pink, the fixed round seats are
white, and the table top is faux wood. The prominence of the Catholic religion among
the farm workers is wonderfully illustrated in a corner of the dining room with an altar
to the Virgin Mary and a crucifix. These are larger than most seen in Mexican
households. The altar and crucifix are enclosed by a balustrade and decorated with
flowers.

Figure 27: Building 3, North Elevation Figure 28: Building 3, North Elevation
Panorama #1 Panorama #2

57

Figure 29: Building 3 North Elevation
Panorama #3

Figure 30: Building 3, South Elevation Figure 31: Building 3, South Elevation
Panorama #1 Panorama #2

Figure 32: Building 3, South Elevation Figure 33: Building 3, South Elevation
Panorama #3 Panorama #4

58

Figure 34: Building 3, East Elevation Figure 35: Building 3, West Elevation

Figure 36: Building 3, Interior Figure 37: Building 3, Interior, 1951
Source: Raymond Roth Collection at
U.C. Davis
35

Building 4 is a small storage building with a nearly square footprint and a low-
pitched roof with exposed rafters, covered with composite shingle. It is clad in
plyboard with vertical battens. There is a pair of double doors on the north elevation
and a single door on the south elevation. It is painted pea green.

59

Figure 38: Building 4, North Elevation Figure 39: Building 4, South Elevation

Figure 40: Building 4, East Elevation Figure 41: Building 4, West Elevation

Building 5 is a small dormitory building, with a nearly square footprint. It is clad
in plyboard with vertical battens and a medium-pitched roof covered with composite
shingle. The south elevation has a wooden screened door over a solid entry door.

60

There are two windows each on the east and west elevation; however, the windows on
the west are boarded up. The building is painted pea green with white trim.

Figure 42: Building 5, North Elevation Figure 43: Building 5, South Elevation

Figure 44: Building 5, West Elevation Figure 45: Building 5, Footing

Note: The east elevation of Building 5 is not photographable due to its close
proximity to the adjacent building. Buildings 6, 7 and 8 are essentially identical in size,
shape and construction to Building 5. These four dormitories are grouped very close
together in the northeast corner of the property.

61

Figure 46: Buildings 6, 7 and 8, North Elevation Figure 47: Buildings 6 and 7,
South Elevation

Figure 48: Building 8, South Elevation Figure 49: Building 8, East Elevation

Note: The east and west elevations of Buildings 6 and 7, as well as the west
elevation of Building 8 are not photographable due to the close proximity of the
buildings.

62

Building 9 is a large dormitory, rectangular in footprint. It is clad in plyboard
with vertical battens, has a medium-pitched roof clad in composite shingle, and has
exposed rafters. There are two entry doors and six hopper windows on both the north
and south elevations. The east and west elevations each have four double-hung
windows, two screened entry doors, and a small slatted vent underneath each gable.
There is also a dropped porch built under the eastern gable, which is supported by
wooden posts and spans almost the entire width of the façade. The building is painted
pea green with white trim.

Figure 50: Building 9, North Elevation Figure 51: Building 9, South Elevation

Figure 52: Building 9, East Elevation Figure 53: Building 9, West Elevation

63

Building 10 serves as a shared lavatory building. It has a rectangular footprint
and is clad in plyboard with vertical battens. It has a low pitched roof covered with
composite shingle. The north and south elevations both have a projecting bay with a
side entry, for privacy and reduced visibility into the building. There is a small slatted
vent under each gable. The east and west elevations each have one sliding window.
The building is painted pea green with white trim.

Figure 54: Building 10, North Elevation Figure 55: Building 10, South Elevation

Figure 56: Building 10, East Elevation Figure 57: Building 10, West Elevation
Building 11 is one of the large dormitories, located at the southeast corner of
the property. It is rectangular in footprint and clad in plyboard with vertical battens. It
has a low pitched roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafters. The north
64

elevation has one wooden, screened door over a solid door and six hopper windows.
The south elevation has two wooden, screened doors over two solid doors and six
hopper windows. The east and west elevations are identical with two wooden,
screened doors over two solid doors, and four windows which appear to be casement
windows with an additional screen mounted on the exterior. There is a screened vent
under the east and west gables. The building is painted pea green with white trim.

Figure 58: Building 11, North Elevation Figure 59: Building 11, South Elevation

Figure 60: Building 11, East Elevation Figure 61: Building 11, West Elevation

Building 12 is one of the large dormitories. It is rectangular in footprint and is
clad in plyboard with vertical battens. The roof is low pitched with overhanging eaves
and exposed rafters. The side gables at the east and west ends are supported by
65

additional 2x4 bracing and have a screened vent under each gable. The roof is
covered with composite shingle. The north and south elevations each have seven
double-hung windows and five wooden, screened doors over solid doors. There is a
small shelf attached to the building at the east end of the north elevation; its purpose is
unknown. The building is painted pea green with white trim.

Figure 62: Building 12, North Elevation Figure 63: Building 12, South Elevation

Figure 64: Building 12, East Elevation Figure 65: Building 12, West Elevation

Building 13 is used for laundry and lavatories. The building is rectangular in
footprint and is clad in plyboard with vertical battens. The roof is low pitched and

66

covered with composite shingle. The north elevation has one double-hung window
and it appears that a second hopper window has been boarded over. There is a
wooden screen attached to the building at a ninety degree angle covering the entry
door for privacy. The south elevation has three hopper windows and a similar screen
concealing the door. The east elevation has a single entry door to the laundry area.
The west elevation has a single entry door again covered by a wooden screen. The
building is painted pea green with white trim.

Figure 66: Building 13, North Elevation Figure 67: Building 13, South Elevation

Figure 68: Building 13, East Elevation Figure 69: Building 13, West Elevation

67

Building 14 is one of the large dormitories, rectangular in footprint and clad in
plyboard with vertical battens. The north elevation has six wooden, screened doors
over solid doors and seven windows – six of which are double-hung and one is single
paned glass. The south elevation has seven wooden, screened doors over solid
doors and seven windows – again, six of which are double-hung and one is single
paned glass. The east and west elevations have a screen vent underneath each
gable and additional 2x4 bracing supporting the gables. The building is painted pea
green with white trim.

Figure 70: Building 14, North Elevation Figure 71: Building 14, South Elevation

Figure 72: Building 14, East Elevation Figure 73: Building 14, West Elevation

68

Building 15, located at the southwest edge of the property, is used as a
dormitory and has an L shaped footprint. It is clad in plyboard with vertical battens.
The shorter portion of this L shaped building is a later addition. Clues to support this
include: the sill plates of the two sections do not match up, the roof pitch varies from
almost flat to pitched gable ends on the north and south elevations, and historic aerial
photographs that do not show the projecting short leg of the L footprint. It seems to
have been added between 1978 and 1994. This building once contained a “five and
dime” store that carried products the farm workers could purchase on site.
36
The north
elevation has two sliding windows and a screened vent under the gable. The south
elevation has a screened vent under for the gable as well. The east elevation has five
wooden, screened doors over solid doors, and four double-hung windows. The west
elevation has a combination of two sliding and eight double-hung windows. The
building is painted pea green with white trim.

Figure 74: Building 15, North Elevation Figure 75: Building 15, South Elevation

69

Figure 76: Building 15, East Elevation (two photos superimposed)

Figure 77: Building 15, West Elevation

The Fillmore camp seems to be typical of its time for the typology of housing
for braceros, unaccompanied male farm workers. El Campito is similar in layout and
construction to camps in regional cities such as Piru and Oxnard, containing buildings
for similar uses such as dormitory barracks, a community dining room, community
lavatories and showers. As seen today, the El Campito buildings have aged nearly
seventy years and are still being used for the same purpose for which they were
originally constructed.

70

Chapter 2 Endnotes

1
Albert Villasenor, personal communication by author, April 28, 2009.
Kevin McSweeny of the City of Fillmore Planning Department, personal
communication by author, May 4, 2009.

2
Catherine Merlo. Beyond the Harvest: The History of the Fillmore-Piru Citrus
Association 1897-1997. (Fillmore: Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association, 1997), p. 22.

3
Albert Villasenor, interview by author, Fillmore, California, June 26, 2008.

4
Albert Villasenor, interview by author, Fillmore, California, June 26, 2008.
City building permits for the El Campito property also list Fillmore Lemon Association
as the applicant from 1943 through at least 1959. Fillmore Citrus Association and
Fillmore-Piru Citrus were used interchangeably through the 1970s. The history of the
packing houses can be followed in Catherine Merlo’s book Beyond the Harvest: The
History of the Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association 1897-1997, on the Fillmore-Piru Citrus
Association’s website at: http://www.fillmorepirucitrus.com/About_Us.htm and on the
Saticoy Lemon Association’s website at:
http://www.saticoylemon.com/main_facility_02.htm

5
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, pp. 8, 23, 37.

6
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 40.

7
Consolidated Progress Report of the Mexican Farm Labor Transportation Program of
the Farm Security Administration, through November 20, 1942, p. 53. Part of the
collection titled “Farm Security Administration Reports and Miscellaneous Documents:
Mexican Farm Labor Transportation Program”, call number BANC MSS 95/174 c –
Folders 7-9, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
Available on Calisphere, part of the University of California Libraries:
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=hb9j49p4n9&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=div00
001&toc.depth=1&toc.id=div00001&brand=calisphere (Accessed on May 3, 2009).
The progress report stated: “In addition, the Mexican Government sent along with the
special trains carrying the Mexican Nationals, two inspectors of the Mexican Labor
Department, Senor Martinez Morales Flores and Senor Arredondo Padilla. These two
gentlemen and the Consular Officials of the staff of the above designated offices
constituted the representatives of the Mexican Government with whom Farm Security
Administration officials have dealt since the first trainload of Mexican workers arrived
in the Sacramento-Stockton area, September 29, 1942.”

8
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 40.

9
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 43.

71

10
Alfonso Guilin, Philip Martin and Edward Taylor. “Immigration and the Changing
Face of Ventura County”. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of
California, n.d., p. 8.

11
Aerial photograph dated May 31, 1994. Source: Google Earth.

12
Building permit history taken from property file at the City of Fillmore Planning
Department.

13
Enriqueta Villasenor and Albert Villasenor, interview by author, Fillmore, California,
April 28, 2009.
Ezequiel Villasenor was listed in the 1929 Los Angeles City Directory. Los Angeles
Public Library, http://rescarta.lapl.org:8080/ResCarta-
Web/jsp/RcWebImageViewer.jsp?doc_id=Los+Angeles+City+Directories%2FLPU000
00%2FLL000003%2F00000001&view_width=20&rotation=0&query1=&collection_filter
=&search_doc=villasenor (Accessed on April 30, 2009).

14
Fillmore 1888 – 1988, (Fillmore, California: Fillmore Historical Society, 1989), p. 21.

15
Enriqueta Villasenor and Albert Villasenor, interview by author, Fillmore, California,
April 28, 2009.

16
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 59.

17
Enriqueta Villasenor, interview by author, Fillmore, California, April 28, 2009.
Substantiated in the article by Donna F. Abernathy: “When Co-ops Went to War”,
Rural Cooperatives Magazine, (July/August 1998), published bimonthly by Rural
Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/jul98/pgpast.htm (Accessed on May 3, 2009).
Abernathy states: “Fillmore Citrus Association, Farmers Cooperative Gin and
McFarland Cooperative Gin, all California cooperatives, were among those that
resorted to using Italian and German prisoners-of-war to help harvest the crops.”

18
Enriqueta Villasenor, interview by author, Fillmore, California, April 28, 2009.
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 40.

19
Mines, Richard and Ricardo Anzaldua. New Migrants vs. Old Migrants: Alternative
Labor Market Structures in the California Citrus Industry. Monographs in U.S. –
Mexican Studies, 9, (San Diego: University of California at San Diego, 1982), p. 43-44.

20
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 70.

21
Enriqueta and Albert Villasenor, interview by author, Fillmore, California, April 28,
2009.

22
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 70.

23
Mines and Anzaldua, New Migrants vs. Old Migrants, p. 43-44.

72

24
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 71

25
Mines and Anzaldua, New Migrants vs. Old Migrants, p. 44.

26
Lynda H. Schneekloth and Robert G. Shibley. Placemaking: The Art and Practice of
Building Communities. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995), p. 159-160.

27
Neal R. Pierce and Robert Guskind. “Farmworkers’ Own Housing: Self-Help in
Cabrillo Village” in Breakthroughs: Re-creating the American City, (New Brunswick,
CT: The Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1993), p. 141-165.
The Bruner Foundation, http://www.brunerfoundation.org/rba/pdfs/1989/06_chapter5-
Cabrillo.PDF (Accessed on May 2, 2009).
Martin Cornwell, “Visit to Cabrillo Village”. El Malcriadito: The Voice of the Los Angeles
Boycott 1, no. 9 (December 1975). Los Angeles: United Farm Workers, p. 5.

28
Martin Cornwell, “Visit to Cabrillo Village”. El Malcriadito: The Voice of the Los
Angeles Boycott 1, no. 9 (December 1975). Los Angeles: United Farm Workers, p. 5.

29
Albert Villasenor, personal communication by author, July 9, 2009.

30
Pierce and Guskind. Breakthroughs: Re-creating the American City, 147.

31
Pierce and Guskind, Breakthroughs: Re-creating the American City, 148.
Hilary E. MacGregor, “Taking Back Turf; Former Farm Labor Camp Cabrillo Village
Reports Success Against Gangs“, Los Angeles Times, Metro Section Part B, p. 1,
August 3, 1997.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=13317679&Fmt=3&clientId=69402&RQT=309&V
Name=PQD

32
Pierce and Guskind. Breakthroughs: Re-creating the American City, 164.

33
Robert Borrego, speaking at a town hall meeting for ex-braceros at Santa Paula
High School, sponsored by California State University Channel Islands for the Bracero
History Archive Project of the Smithsonian Museum of History, Santa Paula, CA, April
28, 2009.

34
Fillmore 1888 – 1988, p. 5.

35
Photograph courtesy of the Raymond Roth Collection at University of California,
Davis. Caption reads: “Mess Hall in Fillmore Camp, Ventura County – Workers are
served in spacious, well-lighted dining room. Most Mexican Nationals gain weight
during their stay in California.” Dated October 1952 on back of photograph. Used with
permission.

36
Albert Villasenor, interview by author, Fillmore, California, June 26, 2008.

73

Chapter 3: El Campito de Piru Bracero Camp in Piru, California

El Campito de Piru was established for braceros in 1950. It is located at 4268
East Center Street, on the outskirts of the small town of Piru, which is approximately
seven miles east of Fillmore. The camp was built outside the clustered development
of the town, nearer to the hills and the agriculture fields. For the most part the area is
rural, although there are a handful of houses across the street from the camp. A
railroad track also once existed across the street from the camp. The track ran
parallel to Center Street and curved through Piru, passing the packing house on Main
Street before continuing west. However, there are currently no operating railroads
utilizing this line and on an aerial photograph the rails and ties appear to have been
removed starting from approximately Orchard Street in town going east.
The majority of the camp property is undeveloped besides the grouping of
camp buildings and numerous large, mature trees. There is one entry into the
property: a paved driveway just west of the pool location. The entire property is
surrounded by a chain link fence, yet it does not feel closed in because of its large
size. The camp buildings were sited in a symmetrical configuration. The remaining
structures are in various stages of disrepair; many of them have suffered from
vandalism with graffiti and other forms of damage.
The camp was known as “El Campito de Piru” similar to the camp in Fillmore.
1

It was also used to house bracero laborers beginning in 1950. The bunkhouses held
four beds to a room. The farm workers ate their meals at the mess hall; they bathed
and washed their clothes at the community lavatories and laundry in the center of the
camp.
2
The buildings are all one story; most of them are wood-sided but three are
stuccoed and one is constructed with concrete block. Many of the buildings, from
74

what can be observed today, had wooden screened doors over a solid wooden door.
This allowed for ventilation of the spaces while still providing some privacy and
security. At the present, many of the doors and windows are either boarded up or
missing.
The camp property was originally part of Rancho San Francisco and then
Rancho Camulos, owned by the del Valle family until Rancho Camulos was purchased
by August Rubel in 1924. It is uncertain when the Piru Citrus Association (PCA)
purchased the land, but it was owned by them by 1950 and perhaps earlier.
3

Citrus growers in the Piru area originally were members of the Fillmore Citrus
Fruit Association (FCFA), which was established in 1897 and whose first packing
house was built in 1899. In late 1914, five growers from the Piru area broke away
from the FCFA and organized their own Piru Citrus Association. They were led by
Charles S. Johnson, a former manager of the FCFA, and David Felsenthal, a founding
a director of the FCFA. At the start of its operation, the Piru Citrus Association leased
a packing house and machinery from the Piru Land and Oil Company. In 1918, the
PCA purchased land at Main Street and Telegraph Road and built a packinghouse,
completed the following year.
4
In 1927 the association built three new bunkhouses for
workers near the packinghouse. These were apparently the only farm worker housing
owned by the company until this time. These bunkhouses were moved to the Center
Street camp site in 1950.
5

In 1961, the Piru and Fillmore Citrus Associations created F & P Growers
Association, a separate organization specifically designed to hire pickers for harvest.
This took the picking operations away from the packinghouses and handled them
under another name and entity. Harvesting associations such as F & P acted as legal
buffers between packing houses and union organizers.
6

75

The importation of braceros ceased in 1964 after much pressure from domestic
workers and farm worker rights’ advocates. Once the bracero labor force was no
longer available, employers acquired workers among the unemployed from various
areas of the United States. The rate of worker turnover increased dramatically. The
agriculture industry attempted to bring more mechanization to the harvest and the
associations sought to re-establish a dependable labor supply. To do so, they
recruited workers in Mexico, helped legalize them, made improvements to the housing
camps and offered subsidized meals and other benefits.
7
It seems that farm workers
at the Piru camp experienced some of these benefits.
Piru Citrus Association began serving their pickers hot meals out in the
orchards in the late 1960s. In the volume of the official history of the Fillmore-Piru
Citrus Association, this seemed to be a noteworthy detail, an atypical thing to do at the
time. A 1968 photograph shows PCA president Shannon Sheldon being presented
with a “resolution of appreciation” certificate for the association’s treatment and care of
its pickers. Maximino G. Torres signed the document for the crew before presenting it
to Sheldon. The following year, PCA renovated the farm worker camp and built a
swimming pool on the property just to the west of the camp buildings.

Figure 78: Farm worker presenting the Piru Citrus Association president with a
certificate of appreciation in 1968. Photo by Betty Nehrig. Source: Beyond the Harvest:
The History of the Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association 1897-1997.
76

Figure 79: Pool grand opening in 1969 with Piru Citrus directors gathered around.
Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association photo. Source: Beyond the Harvest: The History of the
Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association 1897-1997.

Figure 80: Pool area today filled with dirt behind fencing. Building 4 is in the
background. Source: Section 106 Historic Resources Report.

The farm workers at the Piru camp may have been content with their working
and living conditions, however, as previously described, pickers under contract with F
& P Growers walked off the job while working in a local orchard in July of 1970.
Among their demands were: knowing their piece rates at the start of the work day, a
minimum hourly wage and vacation benefits. The strike activity affected the Fillmore
Citrus and Saticoy Lemon Associations, the Ventura County Fruit Growers, and El
Campito in Fillmore.
8

77

The Fillmore residents who spearheaded the walkout were not able to
convince the residents of the Piru camp to join them. The strike ended in disarray and
the settlement between F & P Growers and the farm workers was based on vacation
benefits that F & P had previously planned on providing, only had not implemented
yet.
9

By 1970 the Piru camp was being managed by Nacho Guevara, albeit only for
a year or two. As early as 1954, Nacho had worked under Herculano Villasenor,
whose family managed several area farm worker camps. In 1971 the Piru Citrus
Association and the Fillmore Citrus Association completed a merger and became the
Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association. Nacho’s widow, Mary, relates that after the
termination of the Bracero Program, the undocumented laborers who worked in the
fields would get caught easily by immigration officers if they resided at the camp, a
concentrated target. The farm workers started choosing to live in private residences in
town, even if it meant living in spaces like a garage. The population at the camp
declined and it closed in 1972.
10

The Piru camp initially operated from 1950 to 1972 and then was closed for
many years. In the late 1980s it was offered to Herculano Villasenor, whose family
had operated several bracero camps, but he was semi-retired by this time and turned
down the offer to re-open the camp. Subsequently, Nacho Guevara received a call
from the FPCA manager Ken Creason asking him to return from Mexico to assist them
with a personnel matter. At the time, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
provided amnesties for undocumented workers if they met certain requirements.
11

Nacho was to assist the farm workers so that they could legalize their status in the
United States. He was trained to properly complete the application documents and
would also accompany groups of people to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
78

office in Oxnard to complete the processing. When the FPCA staff called on Nacho,
they were aware that he was personally familiar with many of the farm workers and
would be ideal for the job.
Nacho and Mary Guevara re-opened the Piru camp in 1988 since they could
re-populate it with farm workers who now had a legal right to live and work in the U.S.
Nacho passed away in 2001 and the camp was offered to Albert Villasenor to manage,
but he turned down the offer.
12
Mary kept the camp operating until its closing in 2003.
The Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation purchased the camp property
from the Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association in November 2007. The property is to be re-
developed as new, 100% income-restricted housing for farm workers comprised of
sixty-six to seventy rental homes.
13
The Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board and
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the Section 106 Historic
Resources Report prepared for the property and agreed with the finding that the
bracero camp is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Section 106
Historic Resources Report states that the Piru camp is eligible for listing on the
National Register under criterion A and C. The following substantiation is excerpted
from the report:
The former labor camp buildings are associated with the development
of the citrus industry in Piru and the surrounding area, an event that
has made a significant contribution to the history of the Piru community
(Criterion A). The labor camp was constructed as a response to the
Bracero Program, a federal program that brought temporary workers
from Mexico to the U.S. during World War II labor shortages. More than
four million workers came to the United States under the Bracero
Program from 1942 to 1964 and were critical to the economic
development of agriculture during this period…It also had an impact on
Mexican American settlement patterns in the United States.

The Piru Citrus Association took advantage of this program and built labor
housing in response to the needs of the workers. In addition, the Piru
Citrus Association packinghouse burned down in 1965 and was rebuilt in
1967, thereby making the farm labor camp owned by the association the
79

only historic (50 years old or older) buildings remaining to represent the
historic activities and contributions of the Piru Citrus Association…

The farm labor camp, established by the Piru Fruit [Citrus] Association,
is a scarce example of worker housing representing the important role the
farm worker played in establishing citrus as the most important feature
of economic development of the Santa Clara Valley. The buildings and
layout of the camp embody the distinctive characteristics of a type or
method of construction and the way the buildings relate to one another
by function (Criterion C).
14

The report also states that the property seems to retain the integrity of its
location and historic setting as well as the original materials and workmanship from the
period of significance, which was designated as 1950-1955 when the majority of the
buildings were constructed. However, the integrity of feeling and association of the
farm worker camp has been partially reduced as the site is presently vacant and many
of the buildings have been boarded up.
Mitigation measures were proposed by the preservation consultant that would
reduce impacts of the proposed demolition of the camp buildings. These included:
photo-documentation of the existing site, buildings, landscape features and hardscape
in archival-quality, large format black and white photographs, collecting oral histories,
having a video documentary and a site model made, and creating an interpretive
display onsite. After the elements of the proposed plan are reviewed by the Ventura
County Cultural Heritage Board and Planning Division the items are to be deposited
with the Ventura County History Museum. The V.C. Cultural Heritage Board also
recommended that the developer deposit copies with the South Coast Central
Information Center and the Santa Paula Oil Museum. The Piru Camp was nearing its
scheduled demolition at the time this paper was written.

80

Building Descriptions
The current site plan of the camp includes five dormitories, a kitchen and
dining hall, a lavatory building, an office, a trash enclosure, a storage room, two
concrete slab foundations, and the pool.

Figure 81: Site Plan of El Campito de Piru (prior to destruction of Buildings 2 and 3).
Source: Google Earth, July 10, 2009

Building 1 Office
Building 2 Dormitory - No longer standing; only slab foundation remains
Building 3 Dormitory - No longer standing; only slab foundation remains
Building 4 Dormitory
Building 5 Dormitory
Building 6 Dormitory
81

Building 7 Dormitory
Building 8 Dormitory
Building 9 Trash enclosure/storage
Building 10 Kitchen and dining room
Building 11 Lavatories
Building 12 Office
Building 1 is located at the southwestern corner of the development and was
utilized as an office, as well as a recreation center, classroom and lunchroom. It was
built in 1950. Originally it was 960 sf. with a square footprint, then a 120 sf. addition
was made to the north side, estimated in 1988.
15

The addition was designed to match the rest of the building. It has a
moderately pitched gable roof with exposed rafters under the broad overhanging
eaves. Some of the wooden double-hung windows have been covered with plywood.
The north elevation has one double hung window and one small window with a single
pane, possibly a hopper window. The west elevation has one screened entry door,
one double-hung window and one small sliding window. A louvered vent is located
under the gable. The east elevation has two entry doors. They are centered and
made of wood with five panels. There are also two double-hung windows, a small
sliding window, and a louvered vent under the gable. The building is clad with
horizontal wood siding and is painted tan with brown trim.
Note: In a photograph by Triem and Stone from the Section 106 Historic
Resources Report, the word “Motel” is painted on the west elevation of Building 2. In
a subsequent photograph taken by the author the sign no longer appears. After
speaking with the former manager of the camp and the manager for the site’s

82

redevelopment project, it was discovered that the camp has been used as a filming
location and the motel sign was likely a temporary prop added by the film crew.
16

Figure 82: Building 1, North Elevation Figure 83: Building 1, South Elevation

Figure 84: Building 1, West Elevation Figure 85: Building 1, East Elevation

Figure 86: Building 1, Close-up of Sign
83

Buildings 2 and 3 no longer exist - two dormitories constructed in 1950 and
destroyed by a fire in 2007. Only the concrete slab foundations remain. The two
buildings appear to have been very similar in form and size, as noted in aerial
photographs prior to their destruction.

Figure 87: Building 2, concrete slab foundation

Figure 88: Building 3, concrete slab foundation (with Building 4 in the background)

Building 4 is a dormitory located at the northwest corner of the development. It
was built in 1927 and has a rectangular footprint, measuring 24 ‘. by 48 ‘.
17
The
building has a moderately pitched gable roof and exposed rafters under the
overhanging eaves. The north and south elevations each contain two double-hung
windows. On both the east and west elevations, there are four screened entry doors.
84

The doors are grouped close together in pairs and each pair shares a set of concrete
steps. There are four double-hung windows on both the east and west elevations.
Additionally, the east side has two large pieces of plyboard covering what looks like
two more doors, but it is unclear what is underneath the plyboard, and there are no
steps leading up to these. The building is covered with stucco siding. The building
may originally have had wood siding which was stuccoed after it was moved. It is
painted tan with brown trim.

Figure 89: Building 4, North Elevation Figure 90: Building 4, South Elevation

Figure 91: Building 4, West Elevation Figure 92: Building 4, East Elevation

85

Figure 93: Building 4, Close-up of Stucco

Building 5 is a dormitory located at the northern edge of the camp and in the
center of the cluster of buildings. It was built in 1927 and moved from its original
location near the Piru Citrus packinghouse in 1950 when the bracero camp was
established at this site. It has a long rectangular footprint measuring 24 ‘ by 80 ‘ with a
moderately pitched roof and exposed rafters under the overhanging eaves.
18
The
north elevation has multiple windows but they have been boarded up. The south
elevation has seven double-hung windows and two entry doors, each with a concrete
step. The east elevation has two double-hung windows and an entry door. There are
also brackets supporting the ends of the gable. The west elevation has one double-
hung window, one entry door, and a similar bracket. The building is covered with
stucco siding and is painted tan with brown trim. The building may originally have had
wood siding which was stuccoed after it was moved.
19
The south elevation, which
faces the interior of the camp, has three decorative lattices adhered to the wall.

86

Figure 94: Building 5, North Elevation Figure 95: Building 5, South Elevation

Figure 96: Building 5, West Elevation Figure 97: Building 5, East Elevation

Building 6 is a dormitory at the north east corner of the development that was
built in 1927 and was moved from its original location near the packing house to the
camp property in 1950. It has a long rectangular footprint, measuring 24 ‘ by 48 ‘, with
a moderately pitched gable roof and exposed rafters under the overhanging eaves.
20

It appears to be the same in form and size as Building 4. The north elevation has two
windows that have been covered with plyboard. The south elevation has two double-
hung windows and two brackets supporting the ends of the gable. The east elevation
has four double-hung windows and four entry doors. Some of the windows have been
boarded up. The doors are grouped close together in pairs and each pair shares a set
87

of concrete steps. The west elevation has four double-hung windows and four
screened entry doors. The doors are grouped close together in pairs and each pair
shares a set of concrete steps. Additionally, centered on the elevation, there are two
solid, paneled doors that appear narrower than the other four. One has concrete
steps leading up to it but the other does not. It is possible they lead to a storage or
utility room. A decorative lattice is also adhered to the west elevation. The building is
covered with stucco siding. It may originally have featured wood siding and was
stuccoed after it was moved.
21
It is painted tan with brown trim.

Figure 98: Building 6, North Elevation Figure 99: Building 6, South Elevation

Figure 100: Building 6, East Elevation Figure 101: Building 6, West Elevation

88

Building 7 is a dormitory on the eastern edge of the cluster of camp buildings,
constructed in 1950. It has a nearly square footprint measuring 32 ‘. by 35 ‘. and has
a moderately pitched gable roof with exposed rafters under the overhanging eaves.
22

The north elevation has two entry doors, four double-hung windows, and a louvered
vent under the gable peak. The south elevation is identical, except for the concrete
foundation underneath which was built up higher on this end of the building. There-
fore, two sets of steps lead up to the two entry doors. The east elevation has four
windows that have been boarded up. They appear to be three hopper windows and
one double-hung window. The west elevation has four hopper windows and a lattice.
The building is clad in horizontal wood siding and is painted tan with brown trim.

Figure 102: Building 7, North Elevation Figure 103: Building 7, South Elevation

Figure 104: Building 7, East Elevation Figure 105: Building 7, West Elevation
89

Building 8 is a dormitory next to and nearly identical to Building 7. Also built in
1950, it has a square footprint and a moderately pitched gable roof with exposed
rafters under the overhanging eaves. The north elevation has two entry doors, four
double-hung windows, and a louvered vent under the gable peak. The south elevation
is identical, except for the concrete foundation underneath which was built up higher
on this end of the building. Therefore, two sets of steps lead up to the two entry doors.
The east elevation has four windows that have been boarded up. They appear to be
hopper windows. The west elevation has four hopper windows, one of which is
boarded up. There is also a red wooden box mounted on this wall, perhaps a fire
extinguisher or electrical panel. The building is clad in horizontal wood siding and is
painted tan with brown trim.
Note: In a photograph by Triem and Stone in the Section 106 Historic
Resources Report, the west elevation of Building 8 also had a solid wooden door
surrounded by a projecting casing. When the author of this paper photographed the
camp buildings, the door was no longer present, with no sign of it having been
structurally a part of the wall. Upon speaking with the former manager of the camp
and the manager of the redevelopment project for the site, it was determined that the
door was a false building element, a prop used by a filming crew.

Figure 106: Building 8, North Elevation Figure 107: Building 8, South Elevation
90

Figure 108: Building 8, East Elevation Figure 109: Building 8, West Elevation

Figure 110: Photo from Section 106 Historic Resources Report showing false door
23

Building 9, located slightly southeast of the kitchen/dining room building was
used as a trash enclosure. It was constructed in 1951 and measures 8 ‘ by 10 ‘.
24

It has the appearance of a kiosk. The lower half of the building is enclosed with wide
horizontal wood siding while the upper half is enclosed only by a mesh screen. It has
a low-pitched gable roof with overhanging eaves and vertical boards under the gables.
A paneled wooden door is located on the western elevation. It is painted a light
turquoise but has faded significantly.

91

Figure 111: Building 9, North Elevation Figure 112: Building 9, South Elevation

Figure 113: Building 9, East Elevation Figure 114: Building 9, West Elevation

Building 10 is the kitchen and dining room, located at the southern edge of the
cluster of buildings. It was constructed in 1950 and has a rectangular footprint,
measuring 32 ‘ by 107 ‘.
25
It has a moderately pitched gable roof with exposed rafters
under the overhanging eaves. The north elevation has two single wooden doors and
approximately 11 double-hung windows. At least 3 of the windows have a ventilation
or air conditioning unit attached on the exterior. The double doors of the main entry
are on the south elevation above a large concrete stoop. There are approximately 11
double-hung windows and one additional solid wood entry door surrounded by a
projecting casing. The east elevation has two adjacent hopper windows and a
92

screened door above a concrete stoop. There is a louvered vent under the gable.
The west elevation has four double-hung windows and a pair of double doors above a
concrete stoop. There is a louvered vent under the gable and the words “Dining Hall”
are painted above the double doors. The building is clad in horizontal wood siding and
painted tan with brown trim.

Figure 115: Building 10, North Elevation Figure 116: Building 10, North Elevation
Panorama #1 Panorama #2

Figure 117: Building 10, North Elevation
Panorama #3

93

Figure 118: Building 10, South Elevation Figure 119: Building 10, South Elevation
Panorama #1 Panorama #2

Figure 120: Building 10, South Elevation
Panorama #3

Figure 121: Building 10, East Elevation Figure 122: Building 10, West Elevation

94

Figure 123: Building 10, Interior, 1960s. Man in apron at far right is Nacho Guevara.

Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association photo. Source: Beyond the Harvest: The History of
the Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association 1897-1997.

Building 11 is the lavatory and laundry building, constructed in 1950. It is
rectangular in footprint, measuring 20 ‘. by 72 ‘., and has a moderately pitched gable
roof with exposed rafters under overhanging eaves. The building contained fourteen
toilets, fourteen showers, four urinals, six wash tubs, six basins and two gas heaters.
26
The north elevation has an entry door, one hopper window and a louvered vent
under the gable. The south elevation is identical but the window has been boarded
up. A public telephone is attached to the south wall, somewhat screened from the
entry door by a lattice. A short gable wing with double doors and a vent extends from
the eastern elevation to house the gas heaters. There is also a large cabinet housing
electrical equipment as well as five hopper windows and a single door above a
concrete step. The west elevation has seven hopper windows, one screened door
and one solid door, each above a concrete step. There is a decorative lattice attached
to the building. The building is clad in horizontal wood siding and is painted tan with
brown trim.

95

Figure 124: Building 11, North Elevation Figure 125: Building 11, South Elevation

Figure 126: Building 11, East Elevation Figure 127: Building 11, West Elevation

Building 12 is an office building to the west of the driveway entrance off of
Center Street. Constructed in 1955, it is a small building with a square footprint,
measuring 15 feet by 15 feet. It is constructed of concrete blocks and had a low-
pitched, gable roof with wide overhanging eaves. A wooden door is located on the
southern elevation. The north elevation is blank and the west elevation is not easily
visible due to a very large tree next to the building. The east elevation, which faced
the driveway, has a small window covered by white vertical metal bars. The bars
cover approximately four-fifths of the window, leaving a small section at the bottom
open. There is also a small white shelf under the windowpane. According to Mary
96

Guevara, the office was constructed to dispense paychecks to the braceros, but in
actuality it was not used for this purpose. It was mainly used for storage.
27
The
building is painted pale turquoise.

Figure 128: Building 12, North and East Elevations

Figure 129: Building 12, South Elevation
Source: Section 106 Historic Resources Report

A swimming pool, constructed in 1969, is located just west of the cluster of
camp buildings. It is depicted in a FPCA photograph after it first opened (Figure 79).
The pool has been filled with dirt and now has weeds sprouting out of it (Figure 80).
At the northeast corner of the camp, a makeshift basketball hoop is attached to
a large tree. According to Mary Guevara, this was installed by the farm workers in
97

approximately 2001-2002. The backboard is made from a rectangular wooden board
and the hoop seems to be a plastic ring. It appears that the upper portion of a plastic
bucket was cut off and used for this purpose.

Figure 130: Handmade basketball hoop in tree at Northeast corner of property

Figure 131: Bench at North edge of property, parallel to Center Street

The structures at El Campito de Piru are similar in form and construction to
other regional bracero camps, such as El Campito and the Garden City Camp. Each
camp contains an inventory of similar buildings such as barracks for dormitories, a
community dining room, community lavatories and showers. The buildings at El

98

Campito de Piru range from approximately fifty-five to eighty years of age. The Piru
camp was distinctive in having had a swimming pool for the farm workers’ recreation.
Note: the decorative lattices throughout the property are likely props left over from
filming crews.
28

99

Chapter 3 Endnotes

1
Mary Guevara, personal communication by author, July 13, 2009.

2
Section 106 Historic Resources Report, 4268 E. Center Street, Piru, CA. 93040. San
Buenaventura Research Associates, February 29, 2008.

3
Section 106 Historic Resources Report, 4268 E. Center Street.

4
Catherine Merlo, Beyond the Harvest: The History of the Fillmore-Piru Citrus
Association 1897-1997. (Fillmore, California: Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association, 1997),
pp. 17-18; 22.

5
Section 106 Historic Resources Report, 4268 E. Center Street.

6
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 57.
Richard Mines and Ricardo Anzaldua. New Migrants vs. Old Migrants: Alternative
Labor Market Structures in the California Citrus Industry, Mongraphs in U.S.-Mexican
Studies, 9. (San Diego: University of California San Diego, 1982), p. 36.

7
Mines and Anzaldua. New Migrants vs. Old Migrants, pp. 27; 37.

8
Mines and Anzaldua. New Migrants vs. Old Migrants, pp. 43-44.
Merlo, Beyond the Harvest, p. 70.

9
Mines and Anzaldua, New Migrants vs. Old Migrants, pp. 43-44.

10
Mary Guevara, personal communication by author, July 13, 2009.

11
Steven A. Camarota, “New INS Report: 1986 Amnesty Increased Illegal
Immigration”. Center for Immigration Studies,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/ins1986amnesty.html (Accessed on 13 July, 2009).

12
Albert Villasenor, personal communication by author, July 7, 2009.

13
Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Minutes, December 22, 2008.
CEDC Valle Naranjal Farmworker Housing Project Draft EIR, April 2009 prepared by
Rincon Consultants.
Vistas 5, no. 2 (Spring 2007), Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation quarterly
newsletter. Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, www.cabrilloedc.org
(Accessed on June 26, 2008).

14
Section 106 Historic Resources Report, 4268 E. Center Street.

15
Section 106 Historic Resources Report, 4268 E. Center Street.
Also, the addition did not appear in a 1969 aerial photograph but did appear in a 1989
aerial photograph.

100

16
Mary Guevara, personal communication by author, July 13, 2009.
Nicole Norori of Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation, personal
communication by author, July 15, 2009.

17
Section 106 Historic Resources Report, 4268 E. Center Street.

18
Ibid.

19
Ibid.

20
Ibid.

21
Ibid.

22
Ibid.

23
Ibid.

24
Ibid.

25
Ibid.

26
Ibid.

27
Mary Guevara, personal communication by author, July 13, 2009.

28
Mary Guevara, personal communication by author, July 13, 2009.
Nicole Norori, personal communication by author, July 15, 2009.

101

Chapter 4: Triple S Bracero Camp in Oxnard, California

The Triple S Camp, also known as “Campo Tres S”, and most recently as
“Campo Vanessa’s” is located at 1700 East Fifth Street in Oxnard. The property is
situated in an area zoned for industrial-manufacturing uses. The camp is flanked by
businesses such as a gas station and a towing and hauling service. Across the
street, the railroad runs parallel to Fifth Street with multiple spur tracks branching off
to the north and south. One-half block to the east, just past Rose Avenue, numerous
acres of agricultural fields lie between Oxnard and the adjacent city Camarillo.
The stretch of Fifth Street between Rose Ave. and Oxnard Boulevard seems
to have been a hub of activity for the agricultural industry. Over the decades many
related businesses were located there including at least two growers’ associations,
four farm worker camps, and two labor contractors. Growing fields were nearby and
multiple spur tracks ran throughout the neighborhood, as the railroad was an
important component in the shipping of the area’s crops after harvesting and
packing.
1

The three S’s in the camp’s name were derived from three of the large
associations in Oxnard: Santa Clara Lemon Association, Somis Lemon Packing
Association, and Seaboard Lemon Association.
2
The braceros that resided at the
camp were contracted to work for these associations. The camp was established as
the Triple S Labor Association in late 1952 when building permits were pulled to
erect a total of thirteen dormitories, a latrine building, a superintendent’s office and
residence, a carport, and a mess hall with a kitchen. The architect was named as
W.W. Ache and the contractor was Enok Anderson. William Ache was a Los
Angeles architect whose other documented work includes several homes in Santa
102

Monica, a theater in Upland, and an art deco style building in Ventura for the Ventura
County Mutual Fire Insurance Company, constructed in 1937.
3

The thirteen dormitory buildings at Triple S were all a uniform 1,935 s.f.,
measuring 80’ 8” long by 24’ wide, and constructed of ordinary masonry. The latrine
building was also masonry construction, measuring 75’ long by 24’ wide. The
superintendent’s office and residence was 44’ long by 24’ wide. The kitchen and
dining hall was the largest building, also constructed of masonry and 126’ long by 44’
wide, totaling 5,544 s.f.
Within a few years, additional structures were added, such as a carport in
1954 and a recreation building in 1956, which was described as a 30’ by 56’ masonry
and steel building. In 1958, a store room and additional living quarters were
constructed.
The Santa Clara Lemon, Seaboard Lemon and Somis Lemon Associations
sold the property to the Triple S Labor Association in 1954 – two lots totaling almost
four acres for $10.00. From 1953 through 1961, the camp was referred to as “Triple
S Labor Camp Employment Agency”.
Coastal Growers Association (CGA) operated the camp beginning in 1962.
CGA was organized the previous year to provide labor for the harvest of its grower
members. Researchers in agricultural economics state that CGA and other
harvesting co-ops were established to insulate packing houses from employer
responsibilities.
4
Richard Mines and Ricardo Anzaldua describe the circumstances
under which this was implemented:
In 1960, the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC)
adopted a strategy of removing braceros from the fields through the
declaration of a labor dispute at a given ranch or company…Many
braceros were prevented from working on ranches declared to be the
sites of labor disputes. When AWOC entered Ventura County in 1960
103

and carried out some limited union activities, industry leaders hired
lawyers to draw up a document which allowed the chartering of
harvesting associations as “legal buffers” between packing houses
and union organizers. By 1965, SP Growers, F & P Growers, S & F
Growers, L & O Growers, Buena Foothill Growers, and Coastal
Growers Associations had been formed.
5

The association was in charge of hiring and firing the farm workers, paying
their wages and fringe benefits, supervising them in the fields, and providing
equipment necessary for the harvest. However, all managerial judgment as to the
harvesting activities was exercised by the packing houses. They would give daily
directions to CGA as to when, where, and how much to pick.
6

The CGA office and farm worker camp occupied the properties from 1600 to
1700 E. Fifth Street. From its inception, the Coastal Growers Association recruited
Jack Lloyd, who had been an officer with the U.S. Department of Labor, to manage
Triple S. He managed the camp from 1962 until his retirement in 1986.
7
Jack was
counted on to operate the camp in compliance with the terms of the Bracero
Program. Although CGA was active only in the final years of the program, it is
believed by individuals in the industry that that the camp was well-managed and
maintained.
8
Dionicio Morales, who investigated complaints in the use of braceros
for the Department of Labor, stated that growers in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and
Oxnard often maintained standards above the requirements of Public Law 78 in
regards to meals and housing.
9

Shortly after CGA began operating Triple S, Samuel Camacho, who had
worked for fifteen years first as a dishwasher and later as a cook at the nearby
Pacifico Camp, left that position and became a cook at Triple S. He stated that while
he was cook at Triple S, he was authorized to purchase high quality food ingredients
and did not feel restricted by any budgetary constraints. Samuel was made one of
104

the camp managers in 1971. Among his responsibilities, he was informed when a
farm worker was ill or injured and would take him to the appropriate doctor
depending on the medical problem. Samuel relayed that at one time, a physician
regularly came to the camp once a week to address any ailments the farm workers
had. This doctor then opened an office in the La Colonia neighborhood of Oxnard
and farm workers were taken there for medical care. Samuel later acquired a 40%
share in the camp and eventually became owner.
10

After the termination of the Bracero Program great efforts were made to
entice the Mexican workers to return to the U.S. In 1972, the Coastal Growers
Association sent Samuel Camacho and his associate Rafael De Leon to Mexico to
recruit men to return to work in the local fields.
11
CGA management also maintained
contact with the workers after they returned to Mexico and encouraged a pattern of
repeat migration by sending Christmas greetings and an invitation to return to work
the following season. CGA management cultivated close personal relationships with
employees, providing, among other benefits, birthday celebrations and awards for
good work. In the late 1960s, CGA also added vacation pay and pension benefits to
the health insurance provided.
12

Samuel recounted an instance in the early 1970s where Cesar Chavez was
in Oxnard addressing the farm workers and assembling a protest. Cesar would yell
out to them - within earshot of Samuel - “Do you men want more of Samuel’s mini
cakes?” and the men would respond with an ardent “No!” This was in reference to
the little individual birthday cakes that Samuel would deliver to the men on their
birthday. Chavez was making fun of that gesture, indicating that a little perk such as
a cake on one’s birthday did not make up for more serious inferior working
conditions.
105

In 1978, a letter from the City of Oxnard addressing proposed alterations and
demolition at the site indicated that three buildings were to be demolished as they
were not expected to be used in the future. It is not known which buildings were
demolished, but the original thirteen dormitories, lavatory building, recreation building
and kitchen and dining hall are all still present on the site as described in the building
permits. One of the dormitories (Building A) has been added on to and two buildings
are currently being renovated (Building A and Building C).
That same year, CGA was using a portion of the property for a bus storage
yard. CGA had at least thirty-three buses to transport their workers to and from the
fields.
13
They appeared very similar to a typical school bus, featuring the CGA name
and a lemon shaped logo on the side.
14

In March of 1978, CGA workers voted 897-42 to have the UFW represent
them and a three-year agreement raised piece rate wages a further 22%. Several
grower-members withdrew from CGA after unionization and CGA saw its boxes of
lemons picked fall from 8 million to 5 million between the mid-1970s and 1980. As
volume decreased, CGA had less opportunity to spread its fixed costs, and the cost
of picking lemons rose. The UFW filed charges with the Agricultural Labor Relations
Board, aimed at keeping grower-members in the co-ops, but these charges were
dismissed, encouraging more defections.
15

A fire on the property burned down the CGA office in 1980. The Camacho
family lived on site at the time and with Samuel being out of town, his sons were the
ones to call out the fire department and call management to inform them of the
situation.
16

A few years later, in 1985, the Coastal Growers Association was dissolved.
17

CGA deliberated whether to demolish Triple S but Samuel Camacho took ownership
106

of the camp in 1986. David Donlon, who was part of the administration of Triple S
and who wanted Samuel to retain the camp, was instrumental in helping him acquire
bank financing and finalize the purchase.
18
Samuel states that not many changes
occurred at the camp through 2007 while he was owner.
19
The present owner,
Vicente Martinez, re-named it “Campo Vanessa’s” after his chain of bakeries called
“Panaderia Vanessa”.
The encouraged migration of ex-braceros by their former employers and the
provision of permanent resident or green cards created stable communities of
Mexican laborers in the region. The farm workers brought their families and
integrated into surrounding neighborhoods which caused the population at Triple S to
decline. The Triple S camp (Campo Vanessa’s) is currently undergoing remodeling.
It appears that the camp will continue for some time to serve farm workers in the
Oxnard area.
Although the camp is located in an area not ordinarily used for residential
purposes, it exists as a remnant of a time when a hub of Oxnard’s agriculture
industry was located in this neighborhood and when braceros were relied heavily
upon for agricultural field work. The masonry construction of the buildings
contributes to the permanence of the camp and has allowed it to remain in use after
many decades. Today the camp still serves unaccompanied male farm workers and
has sixty-five rooms; four beds to a room are usual. In the case that the men are
related, five to six men sometimes occupy a room.
20

The buildings are symmetrically sited on the property. The configuration of
the camp buildings allows the dining hall to screen most of the dormitories at the rear
of the property from view, as the dining hall is positioned closest to and parallel to
Fifth Street. There is a roughly paved parking lot between the dining hall and the
107

street. At the southeast corner of the property there is a basketball court next to
Building P. The entire property is enclosed by a combination of block walls and
chain link fencing.
The camp buildings have a decidedly modern flavor. Illustrative elements
include flat roofs, ribbon windows, brise soleil, a plain, smooth finish over masonry
construction, the repetition of a functional plan for the majority of the buildings, and
multi-color window panes reminiscent of Case Study House 8 or a Mondrian
painting. This stylistic influence no doubt comes from the use of a professional
architect to design the camp buildings.
Building Descriptions
The current site plan of Triple S includes twelve dormitories, a chapel, kitchen
and dining hall, a recreation room, a lavatory and laundry building, a storage building
and a basketball court, which is unique, although a construction date is not known.

Figure 132: Triple S Camp Site Plan Source: Google Maps, June 25, 2009
108

Building A Dormitory, caretakers’ residence and chapel
Building B Kitchen and dining hall
Building C Recreation room
Building D Dormitory
Building E Dormitory
Building F Dormitory
Building G Dormitory
Building H Dormitory
Building I Lavatories, showers and laundry
Building J Dormitory
Building K Dormitory
Building L Dormitory
Building M Dormitory
Building N Dormitory
Building O Dormitory
Building P Dormitory
Building Q Storage
Letters are painted on some of the buildings as identifiers thus those same
letters will be used in the building descriptions. All of the buildings are of masonry
construction and have flat roofs except for the storage building at the northern border
the property, which is of wood construction and has a shed roof. The dormitories are
all the same size and footprint because they were constructed at the same time
following a standard model. Therefore, photographs will be presented of only
Buildings A, B, C, H, I, L, P, and Q because many are the same. Buildings H, I, L,
and P will be representative of the blocks of dormitories, as there are three
109

distinguishable sections: the northernmost row of six dorms, the four dorms grouped
around the lavatory building, and the row of three dorms at the south end of the
property.
Building A, a large dormitory, houses the property caretakers, two women
who live at the site and handle the cooking of meals and property maintenance with
the assistance of another man who lives off-site. Some of the rooms are vacant and
are currently being renovated to increase the number of farm workers housed. One
of the rooms in the building acts as a small chapel. The interior of the chapel has a
type of wainscoting with tiled wall panels above. There is a small kneeler in front of a
white and gold altar which contains statues of La Virgen de Guadalupe, an infant
Jesus, and a saint. The three wise men surround the altar. There are additional
pictures of the Virgin around the altar as well as many floral decorations.
The north elevation shows the portion of the building that has been added on.
There are two square, multi-paned windows at each corner that have been covered
with security grilles. The south elevation displays a ribbon window made up of three
adjoining casement windows with four square panes each. The letter A is painted
high on the wall.
The east elevation shows several alterations. There is one solid paneled
entry door, eight casement windows with six panes each, and a ribbon window that
has been covered with a security grille. There is a small room addition which
projects into the yard. It has vertical wood siding, one entry door covered by a
screen door and one aluminum sliding window. There is also a small porch at the
north end of the building, and a corrugated metal shed in the yard. Building A is
closest to the property’s perimeter wall and so there is a small lawn in between the

110

two enclosed by fencing at the north and south ends of the building. There are two
inflatable pools and a kennel area for two little dogs that live on the property.
The west elevation of Building A has seven entry doors, likely solid core, and
approximately fifteen casement windows with six panes each. The flat roof
overhangs approximately two feet except at the portion of the building which is the
later addition. The original portion of the building is painted ivory with purple trim at
the base, except for the east elevation which is pistachio green. The room addition
on the east elevation is painted tan.

Figure133: Building A, North Elevation Figure 134: Building A, South Elevation

Figure 135: Building A, West Elevation Figure 136: Building A, East Elevation
Panorama #1

111

Figure 137: Building A, East Elevation Figure 138: Building A, East Elevation
Panorama #2 Panorama #3

Figure 139: Entrance to Chapel Figure 140: Alter in Chapel Interior

Building B is the kitchen and dining hall. The north elevation has a very large
ribbon window, over which is constructed a brise soleil composed of horizontal
concrete sills with evenly spaced, cylindrical vertical supports. The name of the
camp is displayed on a sign above the front stoop and small porch. A mural
surrounds the single wood entry door. It depicts Jesus Christ at a doorway, as well
as a street scene with a beggar on the sidewalk and children walking down the street
with a uniformed female police officer. On the other side of the entry is a second
brise soleil composed of a grid of horizontal and vertical elements. The south
112

elevation has one solid entry door covered by a security door. There are multiple
adjoining casement windows, each with eight panes, above which are transom
windows. There is also a projecting porch over the entry door and smaller windows
on the other side of the porch, likely casement windows. There are benches against
the south wall as well as picnic-style tables and benches underneath the porch. Also
against this wall, a storage shed with two doors likely houses electrical equipment.
The east elevation has a paneled wooden door, an aluminum screen door,
and a casement window. A small room addition projects from the east wall and has
a flat roof, one solid core door, an aluminum screen door and two aluminum sliding
windows. Another storage shed with a paneled wood door is attached as well. The
west elevation has two rectangular multi-paned windows and a solid core door. The
building is ivory with blue trim at the fascia and orange trim on the brise soleils.

Figure 141: Building B, North Elevation Figure 142: Building B, South Elevation

Figure 143: Building B, West Elevation Figure 144: Building B, East Elevation
113

Building C is vacant but was used as a recreation room until approximately
1999 at which point most of the farm workers had their own televisions in the dorms,
and a community television room was no longer needed. It is currently being
remodeled. The north elevation has three casement windows with a projecting
molding made of concrete block surrounding the grouping. The south elevation has
three casement windows with projecting bottom sills. The east elevation has two
solid core entry doors and seven casement windows with slightly projecting bottom
sills. A partial-width porch supported by wide concrete block columns covers the
entry doors. The west elevation has a single entry door topped by a paneled screen
door. The building is painted ivory with blue trim at the fascia.

Figure 145: Building C, North Elevation Figure 146: Building C, South Elevation

Figure 147: Building C, West Elevation Figure 148: Building C, East Elevation
114

Building H is a dormitory in the northernmost row of dormitories that runs east
to west. The north and south elevations both have a ribbon window and the letter H
painted high on the wall. The east elevation has five solid core doors and six
casement windows, each with six panes. The west elevation has ten casement
windows, each with six panes. Many of the building’s window panes are painted in
varying colors. The building is painted beige with grey trim at the base and light grey
trim at the fascia.

Figure 149: Building H, North Elevation Figure 150: Building H, South Elevation

Figure 151: Building H, West Elevation Figure 152: Building H, East Elevation
Building I, in the center of the camp, houses the lavatories, showers and
laundry facilities. It is oriented the same as the row of Buildings D through H. There
are two dormitories on each side of Building I oriented perpendicular to it. The north
115

elevation has a solid door, a large louvered vent and two smaller screened vents.
The south elevation has one solid door with a small glass pane in it, and two
adjoining, square awning windows, each with four panes. The window panes again
are painted in varying colors. The east elevation has one square louvered window
and two sets of adjoining awning windows, each with four panes. Some of the panes
are painted, while some are not. There is one entry door and a secondary roof or
awning that covers the washing machines and dryers. The west elevation has two
solid doors, one square louvered window, and two sets of adjoining awning windows,
each with four panes. The building is painted light grey with grey trim at the base.

Figure 153: Building I, North Elevation Figure 154: Building I, South Elevation

Figure 155: Building I, West Elevation Figure 156: Building I, East Elevation
116

Building L is a dormitory in the central section of the camp. It is one of four
dormitories that flank Building I. The north elevation has ten casement windows,
each with six panes. Some of the panes are painted in varying colors. The south
elevation has five solid doors and six casement windows with six panes each. Some
of the panes appear to be painted. The east and west elevations have a ribbon
window composed of three adjoining casement windows and the letter L painted high
on the wall. Some of the panes are painted while others are not. The building is
painted light olive with grey trim at the base and at the fascia.

Figure 157: Building L, North Elevation Figure 158: Building L, South Elevation

Figure 159: Building L, West Elevation Figure 160: Building L, East Elevation

117

Building P is a dormitory in the southernmost row of buildings that runs east
to west. It is next to the basketball court. The north elevation has a ribbon window
and the letter P is painted on the wall. The south elevation has a similar ribbon
window and some of the panes appear to have been replaced. The east elevation
has five solid doors and six casement windows, each with six panes. The west
elevation has ten casement windows, each with six panes. A few of the panes have
been painted. The building is painted light grey with grey trim at the base.

Figure 161: Building P, North Elevation Figure 162: Building P, South Elevation

Figure 163: Building P, West Elevation Figure 164: Building P, East Elevation

118

Figure 165: Basketball court in SE corner of property

Building Q is a small storage building against the perimeter fence at the
northern border of the property. It is wood frame construction and has board and
batten siding. It has a shed roof with exposed rafters. The north elevation is not
visible as a screen has been placed between the perimeter fence and the building.
The south elevation has a double door entry, although one of the doors appears to
have been replaced with a solid wooden panel. There is a transom window above
the doorway covered with metal grating. A sliding window next to the doorway is
also covered with metal grating. The east elevation is partially obscured by
bougainvillea. The west elevation has an additional storage shed attached; it seems
to be constructed of plyboard and corrugated metal panels, with a shed roof also
made of corrugated metal. The building is painted light grey with white trim.

119

Figure 166: Building Q, North Elevation Figure 167: Building Q, South Elevation

Figure 168: Building Q, West Elevation Figure 169: Building Q, East Elevation

Figure 170: Interior of a dormitory room
Source: Samuel Camacho

120

Figure 171: Thanksgiving day meal. Figure 172: Fruit snacks in individual
Source: Samuel Camacho bags for the farm workers.
Source: Samuel Camacho

121

Chapter 4 Endnotes

1
All located on East Fifth Street: Cal Lima Bean Growers Association, Coastal Growers
Association office, American Crystal Sugar Company adobes for field workers, Triple S
and Buena Vista farm worker camps, Ventura County Farmers Employment Agency,
State Department of Human Resources Development farm labor office, Oxnard Labor
Service Employment Agency. The Oxnard Citrus Association and PlainOx camps were
on intersecting Rose Ave. and Pacific Ave. Sources: Oxnard city directories and Oxnard
1929 Sanborn map.

2
Samuel Camacho, interview by author, Oxnard, California, March 24, 2009.

3
“Historic Homes”, City of Upland,
http://www.uplandpl.lib.ca.us/asp/Site/Living/HistoricHomes/details.asp?ID=373
(Accessed on July 16, 2009).
“City of San Buenaventura Historic Landmarks & Districts, July 1, 2003”. City of Ventura,
http://cityofventura.net/files/community_development/planning/current_planning/resource
s/historic_landmarks.pdf (Accessed July 16, 2009).

4
Alfonso Guilin, Philip Martin and Edward Taylor. “Immigration and the Changing Face
of Ventura County”. Agricultural and Resource Economics Update 5, no. 6 (July/August
2002): 8, Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California.

5
Richard Mines and Ricardo Anzaldua. New Migrants vs. Old Migrants: Alternative
Labor Market Structures in the California Citrus Industry, Monographs in U.S.-Mexican
Studies, 9. (San Diego: University of California San Diego, 1982): 36.

6
Jack Lloyd, Philip L. Martin and John Mamer. “The Ventura Citrus Labor Market”,
Giannini Information Series, no. 88-1(April 1988): 2. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural
Economics, University of California.

7
“Snapshots in a Farm Labor Tradition”, Labor Management Decisions 3, no. 1
(Winter/Spring 1993): 1. Berkeley: University of California Agricultural Personnel
Management Program.

8
Ralph Ramos interview by author, Oxnard, California, May 26, 2009.
Robert Borrego, whose parents operated a bracero camp in Santa Paula, participated in
organizing farm workers in Ventura county. He stated that he did not recall complaints
from the farm workers about the CGA or Buena Vista camps. Personal communication
with author, May 20, 2009.

9
Dionicio Morales. Dionicio Morales: A Life in Two Cultures. (Houston: Piñata Books, a
division of Arte Publico Press, University of Houston, 1997), p. 145-148.

122

10
Jeffrey W. Maulhardt. Images of America: Oxnard 1941 – 2004. (Charleston, S.C.:
Arcadia Publishing, 2005), p. 87
Assessor’s records for 1700 E. Fifth Street Oxnard, CA.
Interview with Samuel Camacho by author. Oxnard, California, March 24, 2009.
Building permits for the property list the owner as the Triple S Labor Association through
at least 1972 and a grant deed transfers the land from Triple S Labor Association to
Camacho & Sons in 1986.

11
Samuel Camacho, interview by author, Oxnard, California, March 24, 2009.

12
Mines and Anzaldua. New Migrants vs. Old Migrants, p. 39-40.

13
Source: Permit records for the property.
State of California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Decision, Coastal Growers
Association and S & F Growers vs. United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Case
No. 78-UC-1-OX, 79-UC-1-OX, April 18, 1980, p. 7.

14
Photographs in the possession of Samuel Camacho, former owner of the camp.
Interview by author, Oxnard, California, March 24, 2009.

15
Guilin, Martin and Taylor. “Immigration and the Changing Face of Ventura County”, p.
8.

16
Samuel Camacho, personal communication by author, July 22, 2009.

17
“Report of the Changing Face Seminar: Focus on Ventura County”, volume 8, no. 2,
(April 4-5, 2002), Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, n.p.
Philip L. Martin “Promise Unfulfilled: Why Didn’t Collective Bargaining Transform
California’s Farm Labor Market?” Backgrounder (January 2004): 4. Washington, D.C.:
Center for Immigration Studies.

18
Samuel Camacho, personal communication by author, July 22, 2009.

19
Permit records show only two instances of electrical work being performed at the
property during this time.

20
Personal communication with a maintenance worker at the Triple S camp by author,
Oxnard, California, July 16, 2009.

123

Chapter 5: Buena Vista Bracero Camp in Oxnard, California

The Buena Vista camp was located at 1608 East Fifth Street, neighboring the
Triple S camp. Although the Buena Vista camp has long been demolished, it is
renowned in the area and noteworthy for several reasons. The Ventura County Farm
Labor Association created 165 camps to accommodate the thousands of braceros
being brought into the region and the largest of these purportedly was the Buena
Vista camp.
1
As described in a book by Fred Ross, a community organizer with
Cesar Chavez and the Community Service Organization, it was rumored in the 1950s
to be the largest camp in the United States housing 4,000 to 5,000 braceros.
2
The
braceros housed at Buena Vista worked primarily in vegetables such as tomatoes
and celery, as opposed to those at Triple S who were primarily citrus pickers. In
addition, Buena Vista also served as a labor dispatch center for domestic farm
workers who first needed to obtain referral cards from the Farm Placement Service
before being given a work assignment.
3

The Buena Vista bracero camp was built on property owned by C and M
Properties, which was comprised of John and Robert Maulhardt and Edwin L. Carty.
The Maulhardts and Cartys were from German immigrant families who were
prominent ranchers in the early history of the Oxnard area.
4
The Ventura County
Farm Labor Association operated the camp under an agreement with C and M.
5

Fidel Villasenor operated catering and restaurant services and likely handled
management during the 1950s and 1960s.
6
As was noted in chapter two, the
Villasenor family managed and owned several farm worker camps in Ventura and
Santa Barbara counties.

124

Permit records for the property show that in July of 1952 three wood-frame
buildings from Reseda, California were moved onto the property and repaired for use
as dormitories. At the same time, a permit was issued to construct an additional
dormitory building with sixteen rooms. It was described as wood framed, one-story,
and 168’ long by 34’ wide. A heater room was also erected that year.
At the end of 1953, a commercial building containing an office and a store
was permitted. It was described as being wood framed, one-story with four rooms,
and 70’ long by 30’ wide. The building was designed by Ezequiel Villasenor. In June
of 1955 two dormitories were permitted as well as a toilet room and showers. The
building was simply described as ordinary masonry. The following year two
additional dormitories were permitted. They were described as wood-frame; one
being 115.5’ long by 33.5’ wide and the other 149’ long by 23.5’ wide.
In 1957, the camp was enlarged again with new main buildings, living
quarters, a recreation and sanitary building, and a mess hall. Several of the buildings
were designed by Ezequiel Villasenor and all were constructed of ordinary masonry.
The living quarters were 43’ 4” long by 24’ wide and 136’ long by 34’ wide. The
recreation building was 112’ long by 31’ 4” wide and the sanitary building was 43’
long by 24’ wide. The mess hall was 180’ long by 80’ wide, with over twice the
square footage of the Triple S mess hall.
A fire in 1959 damaged a building resulting in repairs to the plaster.
Architectural plans drafted in June of 1960 show that the VCFLA planned to construct
an additional five dormitories, a mess hall, and an office south of the existing sixteen
camp buildings (Figure 174). It is unknown if their construction actually took place.
That same year the VCFLA entered negotiations to purchase two barracks at the

125

camp from property owners C and M. The camp kitchen was to be purchased by the
Buena Vista Operating Company.
7

From 1967 onward, the property was no longer listed as the Buena Vista
labor camp but simply as the Ventura County Farm Labor Association. A dormitory
was altered to convert it to storage in 1968, which demonstrates that by this time the
camp was not as fully occupied as it had been in previous years. Also that year,
Oxnard Frozen Foods leased warehouse space on the property for use as dry
storage. Portions of the property were sold in 1973. The camp population was down
to approximately 195 farm workers during the peak of the tomato season in 1975, a
marked difference from the thousands referred to approximately twenty years prior
when bracero labor was widespread.
8
At a time when occupancy had dramatically
declined at Buena Vista, Samuel Camacho recalls the approximately forty remaining
farm workers would go next door to the Triple S camp for their meals. The large
camp became unsustainable.
9

Also in 1975, the Ventura County Farm Labor Association sold a portion of
the property to the Coastal Growers Association. CGA used part of the property to
park their fleet of buses. A work plan from June of 1975 labeled “Demolition and
Utilities Alteration” showed further proposed changes to the site plan. Many buildings
had already been demolished and only nine buildings at the northernmost portion of
the site existed at this time, compared to sixteen buildings that existed in 1960
(Figure 175). The western-most barrack was partly converted to office space. The
bath and television room were turned into a kitchen and mess hall.
CGA came to own the entire site of the former Buena Vista camp.
10
CGA sold
the remaining property to Billy and Carol McCarty in 1986, the same year that it sold
the Triple S camp to Samuel Camacho. The McCarty’s drew up plans to use the
126

northern-most portion of the property for a machine shop, a wrecking yard, and
vehicle storage. By this time the majority of the Buena Vista camp buildings were
gone.
The Buena Vista camp played a part in Cesar Chavez’s and the C.S.O.’s
efforts to assist Ventura county farm workers in the late 1950s. While meeting with
local Chicanos and enlisting new voters, Chavez learned of the widespread
unemployment problem. He had not previously realized it was such a crucial issue
for domestic farm workers, yet the issue was repeatedly brought up. Chavez
conducted an “unemployed farm workers’ registration drive”, which produced
response cards from cities all over the county. One of Chavez’s goals was to
pressure the agriculture industry to give job preference to domestic workers, as was
called for in the regulations of the Bracero Program, but was usually not enforced.
When Edward Hayes, State Director of the Farm Placement Service, came to
Oxnard to install the officers of the Ventura County Farm Labor Association, Chavez
targeted him by distributing leaflets that essentially criticized him for siding with
growers, not enforcing violations of the bracero program, and not hearing out the
complaints of the farm workers. As Hayes gathered with the growers at the Buena
Vista camp mess hall, a copy of the leaflet was produced among the group and
Hayes’ speech was interrupted to show him. Hayes was incensed and promptly went
to the C.S.O. office the next day to meet with Chavez.
This was only the beginning of Chavez’s struggle challenging the system. In
his recollection of the Buena Vista camp, Chavez stated:
…I saw them, Fred, sort of a two-way trickle along the edge of
town. Like ants, only they were men, farm workers imported from
Mexico: braceros. I followed the braceros from Oxnard’s main drag
out to where they went through this high steel fence, near a grove
of eucalyptus trees. There, inside the gate, I could see the camp. I’d
127

heard about it being the biggest bracero camp in the United States,
but I never dreamed it would be so big! First, they had this building
marked “Administration”. Then this huge mess-hall. And behind
that, these rows and rows of barracks as far as you could see that
housed over four thousand workers. The whole thing painted an
off-babyshit brown and yellow. Across the entrance there was this
sign: Buena Vista Camp Ventura County Farm Labor Association.
11

For Chavez and the C.S.O. this enormous number of braceros caused a
problem for the local workers, American citizens that had difficulty acquiring jobs and
suffered from deficient wages and working conditions. The Bracero Program brought
a steady labor force of “compliant and underpaid” foreigners who were bound by the
bi-national agreement and were not prone to protest or strike.
12

However, the braceros at the Buena Vista camp benefited from its reputation
for having one of the better dining halls and recreation centers in the nation. Buena
Vista was deemed to be a model example for other camps to pattern themselves
after according to Jose T. Delgado, minister counselor of the Mexican Embassy in
Washington. As a compliance officer for the Department of Labor, Dionicio Morales
also found Buena Vista to be among the finest camp facilities in the nation where the
housing was superior to many overcrowded camps. The meals were found superior
as well, compared to camps that served food found clinically deficient in nutritional
value.
13
At one time, Buena Vista staffed forty cooks to prepare daily meals and its
dining room could accommodate 700 braceros. The camp was said to be well-
maintained and included a chapel for the farm workers on the property.
14

The regulations of the Bracero Program appear to have been adequately
followed at this camp, providing braceros with amenities that domestic workers
lacked. Coupled with the fact that area growers commonly disregarded the

128

agreement giving domestics preference over imported laborers, this led to protest
activity, organization drives, and unionization efforts for local farm workers.
The history of the Buena Vista bracero camp intertwines significant people,
places and events, starting with the owners, designers, and operators – the Ventura
County families of the Maulhardt’s, Carty’s, and the Villasenor’s. The camp was
renowned (infamous is probably an adequate description) during the era of the
Bracero Program, believed to be the largest camp in the region. Located in a hub of
Oxnard’s agriculture industry, it was a hot spot of the Ventura County farm worker
movement with associations to Cesar Chavez and the C.S.O.’s work in the area,
which make its story all the richer.

129

Figure 173: Plot Plan for 1608 E. Fifth St. by Mikles and Assoc’s for the VCFLA,
dated June 6, 1960. Existing 16 buildings shown with proposed buildings to the
south.
130

Figure 174: Demolition and Utilities Alteration for 1608 E. Fifth St. by Leach-Kehoe
for the CGA, dated June 10, 1975. Only 9 buildings are depicted compared to
previous 16.
131

Figure 175: Demolition activity at Buena Vista camp, approximately mid to late 1960s
Source: Samuel Camacho.
132

Chapter 5 Endnotes

1
Frank Barajas, personal communication to author, March 30, 2009.

2
Fred Ross. Conquering Goliath: Cesar Chavez at the Beginning. (Keene, California:
El Taller Grafico, 1989), pp. 7, 31.
Samuel Camacho, former owner of the neighboring Triple S camp, agrees with this
estimate. Personal communication by author, 22 July, 2009.

3
Frank Barajas, personal communication to author, March 30, 2009.
Ross, Conquering Goliath, 31.

4
Judith Triem and Mitch Stone. Downtown Oxnard Historic Resources Survey Final
Report, prepared by San Buenaventura Research Associates for the City of Oxnard,
July 2005, pp. 9, 17.
Edwin L. Carty, Hunting, Politics and the Fish and Game Commission. Interview
conducted by Amelia R. Fry, 1972 and 1973. Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft
Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt4q2nb0fp&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=d0e45
3&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e453&brand=oac4 (Accessed on September 10, 2009).

5
“Labor Camp Sale Being Negotiated”, Oxnard Press Courier, December 21, 1960,
n.p.

6
Oxnard city directories list Fidel Villasenor at the Buena Vista Labor Camp in 1953
and in 1964 names him as president and his wife Mary vice president of the Buena
Vista Operating Company “caterers” at 1000 Factory Lane.

7
“Labor Camp Sale Being Negotiated”, Oxnard Press Courier, December 21, 1960,
n.p.

8
State of California Before the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, Decision, Case
No. 75-CE-165-M, Volume II. September 7, 1977, p. 2.

9
Samuel Camacho, personal communication to author, July 22, 2009.

10
Ventura County Recorder and Assessor’s records.

11
Ross, Conquering Goliath, pp. 53-70.

12
Ross, Conquering Goliath, p. 7.

13
Frank Barajas, personal communication to author, March 30, 2009.

14
Samuel Camacho, personal communication to author, July 22, 2009.
133

Chapter 6: Garden City Bracero Camp in Oxnard, California

The Garden City camp is located at 5690 Cypress Road in south Oxnard,
approximately one mile from the Pacific Ocean. The camp is sited on a triangular
shaped parcel on the fringes of a suburban neighborhood. The neighborhood itself is
referred to as Garden City Acres, with a nearby park and a church utilizing the same
name. The railroad tracks run alongside the camp property just beyond its eastern
fence. Adjacent to this, the Oxnard Industrial Canal flows south to the ocean.
Beginning approximately one-third of a mile to the east, the many acres of fields still
in agricultural use span between Oxnard and Camarillo. The Garden City camp is
also in close proximity to both the Port Hueneme Naval Base and the Point Mugu
Naval Air Weapons Station.
The Garden City camp seems to have been owned by private individuals or a
small business, unlike other camps that were owned by a large association
comprised of multiple growers. Garden City is relatively small compared to the other
camps studied. It is assumed that the camp was intended to serve the needs of the
small business run by the owners. There did not seem to be any packing houses in
close proximity to the camp, based on the current owner’s recollection and on
Sanborn fire insurance maps for Oxnard.
1
The current owner states that the farm
workers at Garden City worked primarily in row crops as compared to the Tres S or
the Piru camp, for example, where farm workers worked primarily as citrus pickers.
2

In the early 1960s, the Garden City camp was associated with an Oxnard business
called the Western Tomato Growers and Shippers, and in the late 1960s was
associated with Garden City Farms.
3

134

An aerial photograph from 1951 ascertains that Building 7 has existed on the
property since that time. None of the other buildings can be detected, at least not in
their current locations. There appeared to be three to four smaller buildings in the
northwest corner of the site, although their details are difficult to discern due to the
small size they appear on the aerial photograph.
A partnership between Panfilo Barba Nunez and Jesus Z. Garcia held
ownership of the camp from the mid-1950s to the early 1960s. Panfilo operated as a
labor contractor in the Oxnard area.
4
Permit records for the property are sparse and
begin in 1955. The oldest is from April of that year, showing a notice to the property
owners that their official house number was recorded as 5690 South Cypress Road.
In June of 1956, Jesus and Panfilo obtained a permit to install a septic tank on the
property.
In October of 1956, a permit was issued to Jesus and Panfilo for the
construction of a 2,700 s.f. building with the occupancy use listed as a “labor camp”.
It was described as a wood-sided building on a concrete foundation, with a 5:12 roof
pitch, covered with composite shingle. None of the buildings currently on the site
match this description; this building may no longer exist on the property.
Beginning in 1962, the Garden City Labor Camp was listed in the Oxnard city
directory at 5600 Cypress Road. The owners had previously used this as a mailing
address. Jesus sold his portion of the camp to Panfilo in January of 1963. Later that
year Panfilo entered a new partnership with Lawrence Shackelford. Lawrence was
the production manager of the Western Tomato Growers and Shippers, with his
brothers Armond and Rufus also working in the same business.
5
The Shackelford
brothers had another related business in Florida: a packing house known as the 4-

135

Star Packing House or Four Star Tomato, Inc. It seems that by 1975 Lawrence had
moved to Florida to solely focus on that enterprise.
6

Panfilo and Lawrence owned the Garden City camp during the last two years
the Bracero Program was in operation. The two men hired an employee, Miguel
Ramos, who later became owner of the camp in the 1980s. Miguel was originally
from Ciudad Guzman, Mexico. He moved to Mexico City as a youngster with his
family. He first came to the United States under a bracero contract. He had heard
from other men who had already been to the U.S. and were re-contracting that the
Ventura county area was pleasant and had a good climate. Miguel managed to
obtain an assignment in the area and in 1953 moved onto the Buena Vista bracero
camp in Oxnard.
Miguel’s first job at Buena Vista was to assist in moving beds into the
barracks and preparing them for habitation. His first earnings were already in
violation of his contract, which stated that braceros were to be used solely for
agricultural field work - the stoop labor that domestic workers supposedly did not
want to do. At one time, Miguel also took on another job on the weekends at a
western wear store. He was eventually discovered and had to relinquish the position
as it violated the terms of the bracero contract.
The management at Buena Vista had problems keeping up with the payroll for
such a large quantity of men. Miguel offered to assist as a payroll clerk. The
management, after some hesitation and consideration, allowed him to do so. Miguel
began taking on additional responsibilities and was a dispatcher for the workers;
eventually acting like a camp supervisor. He heard complaints from the braceros
such as bouts of illness, complaints about men in neighboring rooms, and problems
with excess drinking in the camp.
136

Miguel met his future wife while in the United States. He returned to Mexico
to adjust his immigration status and obtained a lawful permanent resident, or green
card. Miguel would now be able to legally work in positions not related to the bracero
worker program. He returned to the U.S. and married in 1955. The management at
Buena Vista dismissed both Miguel and the camp’s bookkeeper for an unknown
reason, but both found employment at the Garden City camp in 1961.
The camp was in the jurisdiction of Ventura County until 1965 when the
camp’s and a neighboring trailer park’s septic systems could no longer handle their
loads. Consequently the owners of the two properties collaborated in forming an
agreement to annex into the city of Oxnard to take advantage of the city’s sewer
system. A permit from February 1966 describes plans for the sewer and the
backfilling of a cesspool.
Miguel Ramos was managing the camp by 1969.
7
His son Ralph recalls
some events that occurred when he was young, such as in the early 1970s, union
organizers were active in the area and came onto the camp to rile up the farm
workers. It was decided by the owners and by Miguel that they would allow the
organizers to meet at the camp. If denied access to the farm workers, it was thought
the organizers were more likely to become agitated and cause problems or vandalize
the camp. The Ramos’ understood that individuals had a right to organize, to come
together where they lived to discuss their working conditions.
8
At a place like the
Garden City camp, organizers would be able to address a large amount of people.
For approximately a year between 1974-1975, Miguel Ramos worked for S &
F Growers, another harvesting cooperative, at their Cabrillo Village camp (described
in a 1979 California Agricultural Labor Relations Board decision as a farm labor camp

137

comprised of approximately 90 houses).
9
A strike had occurred at S & F in early
October 1974 and the administration hoped to break the impasse by replacing their
Anglo manager with a Mexican: Miguel. Not long after, in August of 1975, Miguel
resigned, citing medical reasons.
10
He then went back to Garden City Camp full time.
A fire damaged Building 3 and the affected sections of the walls and ceilings
were repaired; rafters and roof coverings were reconstructed in early 1976. The
property was paved in the 1980s, prior to this it was simply packed dirt. Miguel
became owner of the Garden City camp in 1982. His son, Ralph, assisted him in
operating and maintaining the property. Ralph was in charge of the camp by 1988
although Miguel still performed clerical work for several years afterwards. Miguel
passed away in 2006 and Ralph continues to manage the camp. Currently eight farm
workers reside at Garden City; a total of twenty-five are permitted. Approximately
sixty individuals could be accommodated if every building was in useable condition.
The men travel to cities throughout Ventura and Santa Barbara counties for work.
Building Descriptions
The current site plan of the Garden City camp includes two dormitories, a
kitchen and dining room, a lavatory building, a shower and laundry facility, an office
building, a carport, a storage building, and the Quonset hut.

138

Figure 176: Site Plan of Garden City Camp Source: Google Earth, June 9, 2009

Building 1 Storage
Building 2 Carport
Building 3 Partial kitchen and dining room, partial dormitory
Building 4 Dormitory
Building 5 Lavatories
Building 6 Quonset Hut
Building 7 Management office with porch containing showers, sinks and laundry

The siting of the buildings on the property is asymmetrical. Construction
materials and roof pitches vary from building to building. The buildings sit on either
concrete slab or concrete footings. There are a few windows that have been
replaced with modern materials but the majority are the original wooden sash
windows.

139

Building 1, a small building used for storage, dates from the 1970s, per Ralph
Ramos, the current owner. It is situated against the west perimeter wall and has a
slight rectangular footprint. The lower half of its walls are constructed of concrete
block and the upper half is wood framed with horizontal siding. It has a flat roof with
eaves overhanging on all sides except the west elevation, because of its close
proximity to the perimeter wall. A form of flashing has been applied to the small area
that is exposed above the wall. Wooden storage cabinets were built against the
north wall, spanning from the ground to the eaves. The east elevation has one door
and two small louvered windows. The south elevation is not visible because a dog-
ear wooden fence was built parallel to it just a few inches away. The roofing material
is not visible. The building is painted turquoise.

Figure 177: Building 1, North Elevation Figure 178: Building 1, South Elevation

Figure 179: Building 1, East Elevation Figure 180: Building 1, West Elevation
(viewed from outside the property)
140

Building 2, a carport, is located in the northwest corner of the site. It is
rectangular in footprint and is wood framed with horizontal siding. It has a flat roof
with eaves that hang over the east and west walls. Although a tree obscures a
portion of the north elevation, one window is visible. It appears to be a single fixed
pane. The east elevation also contains one window with a single fixed pane. The
south elevation is used as the entry and is uncovered. There is a storage closet just
to the right upon entering the carport. The west elevation is windowless and is
parallel to the perimeter wall. The roofing material is not visible. The building is
painted turquoise.

Figure 181: Building 2, North Elevation Figure 182: Building 2, South Elevation

Figure 183: Building 2, East Elevation Figure 184: Building 2, West Elevation

141

Building 3 is used partially as a dormitory and partially as the kitchen and
dining hall. It is wood framed with horizontal siding. It has a very low pitched hipped
roof. The north elevation has three single and a set of paired windows. They all
appear to be double hung. A small porch covers an entry door and steps, which are
centered on the elevation. The east elevation has two double-hung windows, a solid
entry door and a second screened door, both with steps leading up to them. One of
the doors has a wooden hand railing on each side of the stairs.
The south elevation includes a stuccoed addition from the 1970s, which
projects out and spans approximately one-third of the building’s width. The addition
has one window on the south wall covered with painted metal bars. The south wall of
the original building has a gabled porch supported by slender wooden posts over a
centered entry door and steps. There are also two double-hung windows and four
adjoining double-hung windows (ribbon window). The west elevation of the addition
has two small horizontal windows that likely are hopper windows. The addition
appears to have a flat roof, visibly lower than the hipped roof of the original building.
The remainder of the west elevation belonging to the original building has two entry
doors, each with steps, three double-hung windows, and three adjoining double-hung
windows. The building is painted turquoise with orange trim.

Figure 185: Building 3, North Elevation Figure 186: Building 3, South Elevation
142

Figure 187: Building 3, East Elevation

Figure 188: Building 3, West Elevation (two photos superimposed)

Building 4, a dormitory, is a rectangular building parallel to the northern
boundary of the property. It is a side-gabled, stuccoed building, with wood framed
porches added to the west and south elevations. The porch on the west elevation
spans the entire width of the building. It has two steps leading up to it, has a sloped
roof, and covers one entry door. The porch on the south elevation spans
approximately three-quarters of the building, covering the entry doors to the five
dormitory rooms. There are also four double-hung windows and six sets of paired
double-hung windows. There are concrete steps centered on the east elevation, but
the door that once existed there has been sealed and stuccoed over. There is a
143

louvered vent underneath the gable. The north elevation contains approximately
fourteen windows, but their details are not clearly visible due to the building’s close
proximity to the perimeter fence. The building is painted turquoise with orange trim.

Figure 189: Building 4, North Elevation Figure 190: Building 4, South Elevation

Figure 191: Building 4, East Elevation Figure 192: Building 4, West Elevation

Building 5, the lavatory, is located at the eastern edge of the property, near
the perimeter fence. It is a small, rectangular building with a shed roof and stucco
siding. The north elevation has one small square window that appears to be covered
144

only with a screen, not a glass pane. The east elevation has two similar windows
and an entry door. The west elevation has ribbon windows directly under the eaves
and a garden hose attached lower on the wall. The south elevation has no
entrances, fenestrations or detailing. The building is painted turquoise with orange
trim.

Figure 193: Building 5, North Elevation Figure 194: Building 5, South Elevation

Figure 195: Building 5, East Elevation Figure 196: Building 5, West Elevation

Building 6 is a quonset hut, which has historically been used as a foreman’s
residence. Ralph Ramos, the current owner and manager, stated that only the
145

management used this building; it was off-limits to the farm workers. The quonset
hut has been present on the property since at least 1961, when Ralph’s father Miguel
began working at the camp. While a precise history of the building is unknown, it
may have been acquired from nearby Point Mugu or Port Hueneme Naval Base. A
surplus of these buildings were sold to the public after WWII. In the book Quonset
Hut: Metal Living for a Modern Age, Tom Vanderbilt wrote that a newspaper report
from July 1946 stated that when 811 surplus Quonset huts were to go on sale at Port
Hueneme, more than 1,000 veterans camped out, some for three days, in order to
buy ‘their little Quonsets…’
11

The quonset hut’s construction consists of plywood walls on the north and
south ends with lapped, corrugated metal panels creating the semi-circular roof and
the vertical side walls. The north elevation contains a vent, a door and two windows.
However, these have been boarded up, likely for privacy as they face Building 4, a
dormitory. The south elevation has a similar vent, an entry door and two square four-
paned windows.

Figure 197: Building 6, North Elevation Figure 198: Building 6, South Elevation

146

Figure 199: Building 6, East Elevation Figure 200: Building 6, West Elevation

Building 7, currently used as the management office, is thought to have been
originally constructed for refrigerated storage because of its unique insulation.
12
The
building could have been used for an individual business or for multiple businesses’
storage needs. If it were indeed used for this purpose, the camp’s close proximity to
the railroad track would have facilitated the loading and unloading of goods from the
railroad cars to refrigerated storage.
Building 7 has a rectangular footprint and a flat roof. It appears to be one and
one-half stories in height and has smooth stucco siding. On the north elevation, a
porch with a sloped roof spans across the width of the building. It is supported by six
slender wooden posts. Above the porch are two vents near the roofline, and below it
are two doors, one double-hung window, and two square four-paned windows. The
south elevation has two entry doors, one above a single step and one above a set of
three steps. There are two modern, rectangular sliding windows just above one of
the doors, and two vents near the roofline. Inspecting the painted stucco, one can
see faint outlines of construction work, indicating that there have been modifications
to the fenestrations on this wall. The west elevation contains one door, two double-
hung windows, and three modern sliding windows. The east elevation contains eight
147

square, four paned windows. A large porch with a low-pitched roof has been
attached to the east façade, under which are chairs for the men to sit on, enclosed
showers, washers, dryers, sinks, and a long mirror above.

Figure 201: Building 7, NW Elevation Figure 202: Building 7, SE Elevation

Figure 203: Building 7, NE Elevation Figure 204: Building 7, SW Elevation

148

Figure 205: Building 7, Porch attached to Figure 206: Building 7, Porch attached
to NE Elevation to NE Elevation

Figure 207: Building 7, Porch Attached to NE Elevation

149

Chapter 6 Endnotes

1
Sanborn maps of Oxnard date from 1929 though 1950 but did not include this area,
likely because of its rural nature.

2
Ralph Ramos, interview by author, Oxnard, California, May 26, 2009.

3
Oxnard city directories, 1962, 1969 and 1970.

4
Oxnard city directory, 1960.

5
Oxnard dity directory, 1960.

6
Ralph Ramos, interview by author, Oxnard, California, May 26, 2009.
“4-Star Packing House”, Manatee County Public Library Historic Photograph Collection,
University of South Florida Tampa Library.
http://kong.lib.usf.edu:8881/R/9GD66KSBSHQM5M3TSFJA1SCS9FJ5KL12CLRCG5SN
XL3S1TUVUK-01708?func=results-jump-full&set_entry=000001 (Accessed on 13 July,
2009).

7
Oxnard City Directory, 1969.

8
Ralph Ramos, interview by author, Oxnard, California, May 26, 2009.

9
State of California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. “In the Matter of: S&F Growers
and United Farmworkers of America, AFL-CIO”, case numbers 76-ce-6-m, 76-ce-10-m,
77-ce-2-v, 77-ce-3-v. January 11, 1979, 3. State of California Agricultural Labor
Relations Board http://www.alrb.ca.gov/legal_searches/decisions/5_50(1979)ocr.pdf
(Accessed on June 11, 2009).

10
Richard Mines and Ricardo Anzaldua. New Migrants vs. Old Migrants: Alternative
Market Structures in the California Citrus Industry, Monographs in U.S. – Mexican
Studies, 9. (San Diego: University of San Diego, 1982), pp. 51-54.

11
Julie Decker and Chris Chiei. Quonset Hut: Metal Living for a Modern Age. (New
York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005), p. 72.

12
Ralph Ramos, interview by author, Oxnard, California, May 26 2009.

150

Conclusion

One can successfully apply the criteria for nomination to the National Register
of Historic Places to the Ventura County bracero camps. They are associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history:
The importation of foreign laborers through the Bracero Program was a significant
component of U.S. – Mexico relations for over two decades. The use of braceros in
Ventura County is an important facet of the area’s agricultural industry and also
important to the immigration and settlement history of countless Mexicans to the
region. The widespread use and common misuse of the program in turn spurred the
development of the U.S. farm worker movement in the second half of the twentieth
century. Ventura County was witness to several instances of this struggle between
agribusiness, farm workers and community organizers.
The camps are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past:
major ranchers and agribusiness in the region partook in the use of bracero labor.
Some of Ventura County’s prominent ranchers held the role of landowners,
employers and managers. They were enmeshed in the controversy over the use of
foreign labor, the regress of wages and availability of work to the domestic laborer,
and the treatment of the braceros while in their charge. Some of the camps were
sites of protests, strikes and unionization efforts at which Cesar Chavez, a foremost
labor activist and organizer was sometimes present.
The camps embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction: the bracero camps were created to house a labor force of temporary,
unaccompanied, male farm workers. Examples of farm worker housing in Ventura
County from earlier in the century include detached single-family residences which
151

housed entire families, as it was common for Mexican men, women and children to
work together in the fields prior to the widespread use of braceros in the region.
Thus while the effort to improve farm workers’ quality of life continues today,
yet another layer has been added to this long history: the argument for the
preservation of labor camps associated with the era of the Bracero Program. One
cannot help but to suspect that these labor camps are overlooked because of their
association with a minority people. Certainly not a minority in a numerical sense, as
Mexican-Americans are a significant population group in both Ventura County and in
the Southern California region as a whole. However, they may not be as empowered
as other ethnic groups to call attention to the preservation of their local history and
related sites.
Where camps from the bracero era still exist, it is recommended that they be
studied, documented, and potentially preserved or rehabilitated. Researchers and
scholars are tasked with uncovering additional resources related to this chapter of
American and Mexican history, which encompasses political, economic, and social
significance.

152

Bibliography

“4-Star Packing House”, Manatee County Public Library Historic Photograph
Collection, University of South Florida Tampa Library.
http://kong.lib.usf.edu:8881/R/9GD66KSBSHQM5M3TSFJA1SCS9FJ5KL12CLRCG5
SNXL3S1TUVUK-01708?func=results-jump-full&set_entry=000001 (Accessed on 13
July, 2009).

“A History of Japanese Americans in California: Immigration” in Five Views: An Ethnic
Historic Site Survey for California. National Park Service online book,
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/5views/5views4a.htm (Accessed
July 24, 2009).

Abernathy, Donna F., “When Co-ops Went to War”, Rural Cooperatives Magazine,
(July/August 1998), Washington, D.C.: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/jul98/pgpast.htm
(Accessed May 3, 2009).

American Crystal Sugar Company, “Historical Timeline: A Story of Progress”,
American Crystal Sugar Company,
http://www.crystalsugar.com/coopprofile/coop3.history.asp (Accessed September 7,
2009).

Barajas, Frank. Personal communication to author, March 30, 2009.

Borrego, Robert. Speech at a town hall meeting for ex-braceros at Santa Paula High
School, sponsored by California State University Channel Islands for the Bracero
History Archive Project of the Smithsonian Museum of History, Santa Paula, CA, April
28, 2009.

Borrego, Robert. Personal communication by author, May 20, 2009.

Building Permit records for 5690 Cypress Road, Oxnard, California.

Building permit records for 4268 E. Center Street, Piru, California.

Building Permit records for 1608 E. Fifth Street, Oxnard, California.

Building permit records for 1700 E. Fifth Street, Oxnard, California.

Building permit records for 743 ½ Sespe Avenue, Fillmore, California.

Camacho, Samuel. Interview by author, Oxnard, California, March 24, 2009.

Camacho, Samuel. Personal communication by author, July 22, 2009.

CEDC Valle Naranjal Farmworker Housing Project Draft EIR, April 2009, prepared by
Rincon Consultants.
153

Camarota, Steven A. “New INS Report: 1986 Amnesty Increased Illegal Immigration”.
Center for Immigration Studies, http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/ins1986amnesty.html
(Accessed 13 July, 2009).

Carty, Edwin L. Hunting, Politics and the Fish and Game Commission. Interview
conducted by Amelia R. Fry, 1972 and 1973. Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft
Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1975.
http://www.oac.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt4q2nb0fp&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=d0e45
3&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e453&brand=oac4 (Accessed on September 10, 2009).

City of Upland, “Historic Homes”. City of Upland,
http://www.uplandpl.lib.ca.us/asp/Site/Living/HistoricHomes/details.asp?ID=373
(Accessed July 16, 2009).

City of Ventura. “City of San Buenaventura Historic Landmarks & Districts, July 1,
2003”. City of Ventura,
http://cityofventura.net/files/community_development/planning/current_planning/reso
urces/historic_landmarks.pdf (Accessed July 16, 2009).

Consolidated Progress Report of the Mexican Farm Labor Transportation Program of
the Farm Security Administration, through November 20, 1942. Part of the collection
titled “Farm Security Administration Reports and Miscellaneous Documents: Mexican
Farm Labor Transportation Program”, call number BANC MSS 95/174 c – Folders 7-
9, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Calisphere, University of
California Libraries:
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=hb9j49p4n9&doc.view=frames&chunk.id=div0
0001&toc.depth=1&toc.id=div00001&brand=calisphere (Accessed May 3, 2009).

Cornwell, Martin. “Visit to Cabrillo Village”. El Malcriadito: The Voice of the Los
Angeles Boycott 1, no. 9 (December 1975). Los Angeles: United Farm Workers.

Craig, Richard B. The Bracero Program: Interest Groups and Foreign Policy. Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1971.

Decker, Julie and Chris Chiei. Quonset Hut: Metal Living for a Modern Age. New
York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005.

Farm Bureau of Ventura County. Ventura County Crop Report 2007.
http://www.farmbureauvc.com/crop_report.html (Accessed July 25, 2009).

Fillmore City Directories, 1937, 1938, 1939-40, 1941-42, 1946, 1948-49, 1951-52,
1953, 1956, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1970, 1975, 1979.

Fillmore Historical Society. Fillmore 1888-1988. Fillmore, California: Fillmore
Historical Society, 1989.

Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association, “About Us”. Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association,
http://www.fillmorepirucitrus.com/About_Us.htm (Accessed April 29, 2009).

154

Galarza, Ernesto. Farm Workers and Agri-Business in California, 1947-1960. Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977.

------ Merchants of Labor: The Mexico Bracero Story. Charlotte: McNally & Loftin,
1964.

Gamboa, Erasmo. Mexican Labor and World War II: Braceros in the Pacific
Northwest, 1942-1947. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2000.

Gonzalez, Gilbert G. Guest Workers or Colonized Labor? Mexican Labor Migration to
the United States. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers, 2006.

------ “Labor and Community: The Camps of Mexican Citrus Pickers in Southern
California”, The Western Historical Quarterly 22, no. 3 (August 1991).

Guevara, Mary. Personal communication by author, July 13, 2009.

Guilin, Alfonso, Philip Martin and Edward Taylor. “Immigration and the Changing
Face of Ventura County”. Agricultural and Resource Economics Update 5, no. 6
(July/August 2002). Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of
California.

Heritage Valley, “Fillmore History 1888-2000”. Heritage Valley,
http://www.heritagevalley.net/history_HeritageValleyTourism.htm (Accessed May 16,
2009).

Hernandez, Raul. Interview by author for the Smithsonian’s Bracero History Project,
Fillmore, California, July 12, 2008.

“Labor Camp Sale Being Negotiated”, Oxnard Press Courier, December 21, 1960.

Lloyd, Jack, Philip L. Martin and John Mamer. “The Ventura Citrus Labor Market”,
Giannini Information Series, no. 88-1(April 1988). Giannini Foundation of Agricultural
Economics, University of California.

Los Angeles City Directory, 1929. Los Angeles Public Library,
http://rescarta.lapl.org:8080/ResCarta-
Web/jsp/RcWebImageViewer.jsp?doc_id=Los+Angeles+City+Directories%2FLPU000
00%2FLL000003%2F00000001&view_width=20&rotation=0&query1=&collection_filte
r=&search_doc=villasenor
(Accessed April 30, 2009).

MacGregor, Hilary E. “Taking Back Turf; Former Farm Labor Camp Cabrillo Village
Reports Success Against Gangs“, Los Angeles Times, Metro Section Part B, p. 1,
August 3, 1997. Proquest,
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=13317679&Fmt=3&clientId=69402&RQT=309&
VName=PQD (Accessed July 9, 2009).

155

Martin, Philip L. “Promise Unfulfilled: Why Didn’t Collective Bargaining Transform
California’s Farm Labor Market?” Backgrounder (January 2004). Washington, D.C.:
Center for Immigration Studies.

Maulhardt, Jeffrey W. Beans, Beets & Babies: The Second Generation of Farming
Families and the History of the Sugar Factory. Northridge, California: MOBOOKS,
2001.

------ Images of America: Oxnard 1941 – 2004. Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Publishing,
2005.

McBane, Margo. “The Role of Gender in Citrus Employment: A Case Study of
Recruitment, Labor, and Housing Patterns at the Limoneira Company, 1893 to 1940”,
California History 74, no. 1 (Spring 1995).

McSweeny, Kevin. City of Fillmore Planning Department. Personal communication by
author, May 4, 2009.

Menchaca, Martha. The Mexican Outsiders: A Community History of Marginalization
and Discrimination in California. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995.

Merlo, Catherine, Beyond the Harvest, The History of the Fillmore-Piru Citrus
Association, 1897-1997, Fillmore-Piru Citrus Association, 1997.

Mines, Richard and Ricardo Anzaldua. “New Migrants vs. Old Migrants: Alternative
Labor Market Structures in the California Citrus Industry”, Monographs in U.S. –
Mexican Studies 9, San Diego: University of California at San Diego, 1982.

Morales, Dionicio. Dionicio Morales: A Life in Two Cultures. Houston: Pinata Books, a
division of Arte Publico Press, 1997.

Norori, Nicole. Personal communication by author, July 15, 2009.

Oxnard City Directories, 1930, 1937, 1938 and 1939-40, 1953, 1960, 1962, 1964,
1969 and 1970.

Personal communication with a maintenance worker at the Triple S camp by author,
Oxnard, California, July 16, 2009.

Pierce, Neal R. and Robert Guskind. “Farmworkers’ Own Housing: Self-Help in
Cabrillo Village” in Breakthroughs: Re-creating the American City. New Brunswick,
CT: The Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1993. The Bruner
Foundation, http://www.brunerfoundation.org/rba/pdfs/1989/06_chapter5-
Cabrillo.PDF (Accessed May 2, 2009)

Perez, Vincent Anthony. Remembering the Hacienda: History and Memory in the
Mexican American Southwest. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006.

156

Photograph of braceros being fumigated with DDT. Courtesy of the Leonard Nadel
Collection. National Museum of American History,
http://americanhistory.si.edu/onthemove/collection/object_441.html (Accessed July
4, 2009).

Photograph of mess hall in Fillmore camp, Ventura County, October 1952. Courtesy
of the Raymond Roth Collection at University of California, Davis.

Photograph titled “First Braceros”, ca. 1942. Dorothea Lange Collection: The War
Years (1942-1944) Office of War Information (OWI) Braceros. Oakland Museum of
California. The Online Archive of California,
http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft7h4nb2gt/?brand=oac (Accessed July 5, 2009).

Ramos, Ralph. Interview by author, Oxnard, California, May 26, 2009.

Report of the Changing Face Seminar: Focus on Ventura County 8, no. 2 (April 4-5,
2002), Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.

Rincon Consultants. Draft Environmental Impact Report for CEDC Valle Naranjal
Farmworker Housing Project, April 2009.

Rosenberg, Howard R. “Snapshots in a Farm Labor Tradition”, Labor Management
Decisions 3, no. 1 (Winter/Spring 1993): 1. Berkeley: University of California
Agricultural Personnel Management Program.

Ross, Fred. Conquering Goliath: Cesar Chavez at the Beginning. Keene, California:
El Taller Grafico, 1989.

Sanborn Insurance Map of Oxnard, 1929, pages 4, 10.

Saticoy Lemon Association, “Fillmore Facility #2”. Saticoy Lemon Association,
http://www.saticoylemon.com/main_facility_02.htm (Accessed April 29, 2009).

Schneekloth, Lynda H. and Robert G. Shibley. Placemaking: The Art and Practice of
Building Communities. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995.

State of California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Decision, Coastal Growers
Association and S & F Growers vs. United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case
No. 78-UC-1-OX, 79-UC-1-OX, April 18, 1980.

State of California Before the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Decision, Tanaka
Brothers, Respondent and United Farm Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Charging
Party. Case No. 75-CE-165-M, Volume II, September 7, 1977.

State of California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. “In the Matter of: S&F Growers
and United Farmworkers of America, AFL-CIO”, case numbers 76-CE-6-M, 76-CE-
10-M, 77-CE-2-V, 77-CE-3-V. January 11, 1979. State of California Agricultural Labor
Relations Board, http://www.alrb.ca.gov/legal_searches/decisions/5_50(1979)ocr.pdf
(Accessed on June 11, 2009).
157

Street, Richard Steven. Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California
Farmworkers, 1769-1913. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004.

------ Photographing Farmworkers in California. Stanford, California: Stanford
University Press, 2004.

The Bracero Program and Its Aftermath, An Historical Summary, prepared for the use
of The Assembly Committee on Agriculture, April 1, 1965, p. 7. Calisphere, The
Regents of the University of California,
http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt4n39n6zx&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_t
ext (Accessed September 7, 2009).

Triem, Judith and Mitch Stone. Downtown Oxnard Historic Resources Survey Final
Report. San Buenaventura Research Associates, July 2005.

------ Historic Resources Report East Area 1 Specific Plan EIR Santa Paula,
California. San Buenaventura Research Associates, November 8, 2007.

------ Section 106 Historic Resources Report, 4268 E. Center Street, Piru, CA. 93040.
San Buenaventura Research Associates, February 29, 2008.

------ Ventura County Cultural Heritage Survey Phase VI: Santa Clara Valley, August
1999. Prepared by San Buenaventura Research Associates for the Ventura County
Planning Department,
http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/programs/SurveyReport.pdf (Accessed
November 29, 2008).

U.S. Census Bureau, “Fact Sheet for Fillmore City, California”. American Factfinder,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoConte
xt=&_street=&_county=fillmore&_cityTown=fillmore&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lan
g=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y (Accessed May
12, 2009).

U.S. Census Bureau, “Fact Sheet for Piru CDP, California”. American Factfinder,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoConte
xt=&_street=&_county=piru&_cityTown=piru&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&
_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y (Accessed May 12,
2009).

U.S. Census Bureau, “Fact Sheet for Oxnard City, California”. American Factfinder,
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=16000US06
57372&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C16000US0657372&_street=&_c
ounty=oxnard&_cityTown=oxnard&_state=04000US06&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&
ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1
&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyw
ord=&_industry= (Accessed on May 12, 2009).

Ventura County General Plan Land Use Appendix, December 16, 2008.

158

Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Minutes, December 22, 2008. Source: Kim
Hocking, Ventura County Cultural Heritage Planner.

Villasenor, Albert. Interview by author, Fillmore, California, June 26, 2008.

Villasenor, Albert. Personal communication by author, April 28, 2009.

Villasenor, Albert. Personal communication by author, July 7, 2009.

Villasenor, Albert. Personal communication by author, July 9, 2009.

Villasenor, Enriqueta. Interview by author, Fillmore, California, April 28, 2009.

Vistas 5, no. 2, Spring 2007. Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation quarterly
newsletter. www.cabrilloedc.org (Accessed June 26, 2008).

“Why Braceros?” Produced for the Council of California Growers by Wilding-Butler
Division of Wilding, Inc., San Francisco. Prelinger Collection Archives,
http://www.archive.org/details/WhyBrace1959 (Accessed July 5, 2009).

Zamudio, Luis Ruiz. Interview by author for the Smithsonian’s Bracero History
Project, Long Beach, California, March 23, 2008.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Asset Metadata

Creator Zamudio-Gurrola, Susan (author)

Core Title Housing farm workers: assessing the significance of the bracero labor camps in Ventura County

School School of Architecture

Degree Master of Historic Preservation

Degree Program Historic Preservation

Publication Date 11/01/2009

Defense Date 09/10/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Bracero Program,braceros,Buena Vista Camp,Campo Tres S,El Campito,Farm workers,Fillmore,Garden City Camp,OAI-PMH Harvest,Oxnard,Piru,Triple S Camp,Ventura County

Place Name California (states), Ventura (counties)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Breisch, Kenneth A. (committee chair), Barajas, Frank (committee member), Starr, Kevin (committee member)

Creator Email szamudio@usc.edu,szgurrola@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2703

Unique identifier UC1314941

Identifier etd-ZamudioGurrola-3299 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-272685 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2703 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ZamudioGurrola-3299.pdf

Dmrecord 272685

Document Type Thesis

Rights Zamudio-Gurrola, Susan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu