Descendants of black family who owned thriving resort on LA's Manhattan Beach will have the land RETURNED to them after they were forced out by 'racist policies' a century ago - and it's now worth at least $72 million

Now this is what I call justice.


Charles and Willa Bruce, a black couple, moved to California from New Mexico with their son Harvey
In 1912 they bought land on Manhattan Beach and opened a resort along a then-undeveloped stretch
The resort was one of the first to welcome African Americans to the coast to swim, eat, dance and sunbathe
In 1924 city officials seized two dozen properties through eminent domain and said that a park would be built
The Bruces fought the city in court, lost, and left the area: the proposed park was not built for decades
On Friday Los Angeles County officials announced the land was being returned to the Bruces' descendants
The family are yet to say what they will do with the land, which some estimate is worth around $72m

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9455263/Plan-return-beachfront-taken-Black-family-20s.html

HoratioTarr wrote:Now this is what I call justice.


Charles and Willa Bruce, a black couple, moved to California from New Mexico with their son Harvey
In 1912 they bought land on Manhattan Beach and opened a resort along a then-undeveloped stretch
The resort was one of the first to welcome African Americans to the coast to swim, eat, dance and sunbathe
In 1924 city officials seized two dozen properties through eminent domain and said that a park would be built
The Bruces fought the city in court, lost, and left the area: the proposed park was not built for decades
On Friday Los Angeles County officials announced the land was being returned to the Bruces' descendants
The family are yet to say what they will do with the land, which some estimate is worth around $72m

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9455263/Plan-return-beachfront-taken-Black-family-20s.html

100% agree +1

Can anyone imagine living in a world now, where people could be banned from a beach because of the colour of their skin?

Manhattan Beach is prime real estate along the shoreline of Santa Monica Bay.  It's where LA surfing started.



Eminent domain does not mean the properties were seized because of race.  The park was eventually built, which was the original purpose of the seizure.  Part of the delay was the extended litigation, I'm sure.  Then, when it's over, the times and plans will have changed, with new supervisors on the Board, changing conditions, shifting priorities, and new ideas, etc.

See, this is a case where you can unwind what happened. The city still exists and is the actual entity that basically stole the land (land owners are paid fair market value for their land, they just aren't given an option).

This isn't taking from one group who did nothing and giving to another group that suffered nothing because of events that none of them were a part of.

Suffered nothing?

How much better off do you think black people would be in America today if their enslaved ancestors had been able to pass the earnings they should have been paid to their descendants?

For example, this land is worth $72 million. How many other black people had their wealth forcibly taken from them by racist laws and policies?

Are we going to shrug it off if it happened "too long ago"?

Ben Reilly wrote:Suffered nothing?

How much better off do you think black people would be in America today if their enslaved ancestors had been able to pass the earnings they should have been paid to their descendants?

Today, not much. We are 5 or 6 generations removed from slavery. How many more generations do we need ?

How much have you inherited from you're ancestors?

Ben Reilly wrote:For example, this land is worth $72 million. How many other black people had their wealth forcibly taken from them by racist laws and policies?

Are we going to shrug it off if it happened "too long ago"?

But in this case, it wasn't taken but bought.

Now I'll be honest, there's a good chance it was bought below market value. I have no knowledge of the transaction.

I do know that when Arlington used eminent domain for the stadiums, property owners were well compensated even if they weren't given an option.

So back to this case. When you can individually identify people or descendents thereof, who were screwed over, I think there should be some attempt to fix it.

But to say some random white dude owes some random black dude some money because of things that neither were involved in is silly..

I don't even know if I had ancestors here when slavery was legal. I have no specific knowledge of my ancestors ever doing anything to anyone of color that resulted in them losing money, or me gaining money.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:For example, this land is worth $72 million. How many other black people had their wealth forcibly taken from them by racist laws and policies?

Are we going to shrug it off if it happened "too long ago"?

But in this case, it wasn't taken but bought.  

Now I'll be honest, there's a good chance it was bought below market value. I have no knowledge of the transaction.

I do know that when Arlington used eminent domain for the stadiums, property owners were well compensated even if they weren't given an option.  

So back to this case. When you can individually identify people or descendents thereof, who were screwed over, I think there should be some attempt to fix it.

But to say some random white dude owes some random black dude some money because of things that neither were involved in is silly..

I don't even know if I had ancestors here when slavery was legal. I have no specific knowledge of my ancestors ever doing anything to anyone of color that resulted in them losing money, or me gaining money.

I’d bet any amount of money it was. People forget that California has a history of undercover racism going back to the days of the gold rush. And also a lot was done to the Japanese community there after Pearl Harbor.

I meant to bold the section I was replying to but I hit italicize instead.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

But in this case, it wasn't taken but bought.  

Now I'll be honest, there's a good chance it was bought below market value. I have no knowledge of the transaction.

I do know that when Arlington used eminent domain for the stadiums, property owners were well compensated even if they weren't given an option.  

So back to this case. When you can individually identify people or descendents thereof, who were screwed over, I think there should be some attempt to fix it.

But to say some random white dude owes some random black dude some money because of things that neither were involved in is silly..

I don't even know if I had ancestors here when slavery was legal. I have no specific knowledge of my ancestors ever doing anything to anyone of color that resulted in them losing money, or me gaining money.

I’d bet any amount of money it was. People forget that California has a history of undercover racism going back to the days of the gold rush. And also a lot was done to the Japanese community there after Pearl Harbor.

I meant to bold the section I was replying to but I hit italicize instead.

Well, the Japanese Americans being put in internment camps wasn't really a California idea. That was FDR.

In any event, when government screws over people, it has to pay up. Or we as the tax player do.

When the police kill someone, all of us have to foot the bill for that miscarriage of justice.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Suffered nothing?

How much better off do you think black people would be in America today if their enslaved ancestors had been able to pass the earnings they should have been paid to their descendants?

Today, not much. We are 5 or 6 generations removed from slavery.  How many more generations do we need ?

Well then, to what do you attribute the poverty rate of black families?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Today, not much. We are 5 or 6 generations removed from slavery.  How many more generations do we need ?

Well then, to what do you attribute the poverty rate of black families?

That's a good question. Because in many respects it's worse than it was 2 or 3 generations out of slavery.

I think my signature explains part of it. It's a complicated political process where they have been treated somewhat like children and fed a belief that they can't make it, and any failure in their life can be attributed to their race. Because they are such a large voting block as opposed to other marginalized groups, the process isn't changed.

And the discussion on how to improve things gets stamped out with screams of racism if you challenge people about what many see as a policy steeped in paternalism and patronization.

Cass wrote:

Maddog wrote:

But in this case, it wasn't taken but bought.  

Now I'll be honest, there's a good chance it was bought below market value. I have no knowledge of the transaction.

I do know that when Arlington used eminent domain for the stadiums, property owners were well compensated even if they weren't given an option.  

So back to this case. When you can individually identify people or descendents thereof, who were screwed over, I think there should be some attempt to fix it.

But to say some random white dude owes some random black dude some money because of things that neither were involved in is silly..

I don't even know if I had ancestors here when slavery was legal. I have no specific knowledge of my ancestors ever doing anything to anyone of color that resulted in them losing money, or me gaining money.

I’d bet any amount of money it was. People forget that California has a history of undercover racism going back to the days of the gold rush. And also a lot was done to the Japanese community there after Pearl Harbor.

I don't think there was much Afro-American racism in Californian history. The victims in California were the native-Americans and Hispanic-Americans.

Except in the south, I don't think the problem is overt racism (except for police). The problem--and where family comes into play--is systemic racism. If you've got a black family, you don't get any breaks.

One of the primary causes of the rise of the middle-class in America was the 'nest-egg' that is the home. If you owned a home, you rode the nation-wide rise of wealth...unless, it was in the ghetto. Nobody wants a black neighbor, and so homes in the ghetto didn't rise. In fact, banks would redline black neighborhoods. Real estate agents wouldn't even show blacks a home in a white neighborhood.

Of course, housing is only one economy where it happens. There is education. There is employment. But it is illustrative of how the system holds blacks back.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well then, to what do you attribute the poverty rate of black families?

That's a good question. Because in many respects it's worse than it was 2 or 3 generations out of slavery.

I think my signature explains part of it. It's a complicated political process where they have been treated somewhat like children and fed a belief that they can't make it, and any failure in their life can be attributed to their race. Because they are such a large voting block as opposed to other marginalized groups, the process isn't changed.  

And the discussion on how to improve things gets stamped out with screams of racism if you challenge people about what many see as a policy steeped in paternalism and patronization.

Right. The racism went underground. It became systemic racism.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's a good question. Because in many respects it's worse than it was 2 or 3 generations out of slavery.

I think my signature explains part of it. It's a complicated political process where they have been treated somewhat like children and fed a belief that they can't make it, and any failure in their life can be attributed to their race. Because they are such a large voting block as opposed to other marginalized groups, the process isn't changed.  

And the discussion on how to improve things gets stamped out with screams of racism if you challenge people about what many see as a policy steeped in paternalism and patronization.

Right.  The racism went underground.  It became systemic racism.

Did it? Or did we develop another term to keep the black population useful for political pandering?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Right.  The racism went underground.  It became systemic racism.

Did it? Or did we develop another term to keep the black population useful for political pandering?

You're in the property-estimation business for banks. Explain to the folks what is "Redlining". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Did it? Or did we develop another term to keep the black population useful for political pandering?

You're in the property-estimation business for banks.  Explain to the folks what is "Redlining".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

I know what it was. Now those neighborhoods are being gentrified, and people are mad that all of the investment is driving values up.

Can't win.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're in the property-estimation business for banks.  Explain to the folks what is "Redlining".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

I know what it was. Now those neighborhoods are being gentrified, and people are mad that all of the investment is driving values up.

Can't win.

Some.  But as an Assistant Attorney General of the State of Arizona, I did a study of the financial industry in Arizona.  Most financial institution have changed their terminology to safety and soundness of loans, but it's just systemic racism by another name and philosophy.

Indeed, the systematic nature of racism today is just a carry-over of the old racism, but buttressed by new philosophies and justifications.  It's Lee Atwater all over again: change the term from Niggahs to Welfare families, from Niggahtown to Center-city...and you are good to go.  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I know what it was. Now those neighborhoods are being gentrified, and people are mad that all of the investment is driving values up.

Can't win.

Some.  But as an Assistant Attorney General of the State of Arizona, I did a study of the financial industry in Arizona.  Most financial institution have changed their terminology to safety and soundness of loans, but it's just systemic racism by another name.

Indeed, the systematic nature of racism today is just a carry-over of the old racism, but buttressed by new philosophies and justifications.  It's Lee Atwater all over again: change the term from Niggah to Welfare families, and you are good to go.  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

Let me tell you something about lenders today. They are interested in one color.

And it's green.

And your almighty credit score. We played that game of loaning money to folks who couldn't repay it. Didn't work too well for them. It made some folks feel like they were "helping" I guess.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Some.  But as an Assistant Attorney General of the State of Arizona, I did a study of the financial industry in Arizona.  Most financial institution have changed their terminology to safety and soundness of loans, but it's just systemic racism by another name.

Indeed, the systematic nature of racism today is just a carry-over of the old racism, but buttressed by new philosophies and justifications.  It's Lee Atwater all over again: change the term from Niggah to Welfare families, and you are good to go.  https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

Let me tell you something about lenders today. They are interested in one color.  

And it's green.  

And your almighty credit score. We played that game of loaning money to folks who couldn't repay it.  Didn't work too well for them. It made some folks feel like they were "helping" I guess.

I know.  Another phrase to express what you are saying, is: you'll never dig out of that hole!!

Blacks have confronted that problem for ions.  It's entrenched in the banking ethos, that blacks are poor risks, and can only buy in the poorer areas.  Thus, where blacks buy homes, is risky real estate!  They never get to build up their estate.  Poor risk, poor property, all blacks.  Isn't that just another word for racism...only, it's gone 'systematic'?

I told you: modern, sophisticated operatives today incorporate philosophies and justifications into their excuses.  It's systemic racism.  That's why I asked: 'To what do you attribute the poverty rate of black families?'

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Let me tell you something about lenders today. They are interested in one color.  

And it's green.  

And your almighty credit score. We played that game of loaning money to folks who couldn't repay it.  Didn't work too well for them. It made some folks feel like they were "helping" I guess.

I know.  Another phrase to express what you are saying, is: you'll never dig out of that hole!!

Blacks have confronted that problem for ions.  It's entrenched in the banking ethos, that blacks are poor risks, and can only buy in the poorer areas.  Thus, where blacks buy homes, is risky real estate!  They never get to build up their estate.  Poor risk, poor property, all blacks.  Isn't that just another word for racism...only, it's gone 'systematic'?

I told you: modern, sophisticated operatives today incorporate philosophies and justifications into their excuses.  It's systemic racism.  That's why I asked: 'To what do you attribute the poverty rate of black families?'

And I told you that race doesn't matter when writing loans.

Loan officers get paid a few thousand dollars for every loan that closes. They will loan money to a dog if it qualifies. In the past 20 years, we have created more problems for folks by "easy" money.

https://www.armytimes.com/pay-benefits/2018/01/10/experts-va-loan-churning-can-hurt-vets-and-the-mortgage-market/


Now if you're worried about lending practices to then less sophisticated, this is still a real problem. But it doesn't amount to not loaning money, but loaning money that only helps the lender.

People aren't being harmed because lenders won't loan them money, but because they will loan them money far too often.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I know.  Another phrase to express what you are saying, is: you'll never dig out of that hole!!

Blacks have confronted that problem for ions.  It's entrenched in the banking ethos, that blacks are poor risks, and can only buy in the poorer areas.  Thus, where blacks buy homes, is risky real estate!  They never get to build up their estate.  Poor risk, poor property, all blacks.  Isn't that just another word for racism...only, it's gone 'systematic'?

I told you: modern, sophisticated operatives today incorporate philosophies and justifications into their excuses.  It's systemic racism.  That's why I asked: 'To what do you attribute the poverty rate of black families?'

And I told you that race doesn't matter when writing loans.

Loan officers get paid a few thousand dollars for every loan that closes. They will loan money to a dog if it qualifies. In the past 20 years, we have created more problems for folks by "easy" money.

But, the more you clamp down for reasons of prudent lending, the more you eliminate blacks from the lending pool. It's not anyone specifically hating blacks. It's not intentional discrimination. It's the fact that America is a racist nation.

That's why the property is low, why the buyers are poor risks, and why bankers won't lend. Racism begets systemic racism, and the racism in the US becomes systemic.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And I told you that race doesn't matter when writing loans.

Loan officers get paid a few thousand dollars for every loan that closes. They will loan money to a dog if it qualifies. In the past 20 years, we have created more problems for folks by "easy" money.

But, the more you clamp down for reasons of prudent lending, the more you eliminate blacks from the lending pool.  It's not anyone specifically hating blacks.  It's not intentional discrimination.  It's the fact that America is a racist nation.

That's why the property is low, why the buyers are poor risks, and why bankers won't lend.  Racism begets systemic racism, and the racism in the US becomes systemic.

Ate you saying blacks have lower credit scores?