Black family's beach property in CA was taken during Jim Crow.

[The IbanezerScrooge]

A Black family's beach property in California was taken during the Jim Crow era. The county is now giving it back, and it's worth millions

Los Angeles (CNN) - A century ago, a Black couple owned a beach resort in Manhattan Beach -- a Southern California town known for its scenic expanse. An inviting soulful energy and the songs of Black entertainers radiated throughout the corridors of the dance hall and lodge.​

But the music and good times would not last due to the strict racial segregation that dominated American life then. Harassment from White neighbors and the Ku Klux Klan tore away at the dreams of owners Charles and Willa Bruce.

The final blow came in 1924 when the city took the property through eminent domain and paid the couple a fraction of what they asked for. The city wanted the land for a park. The Bruces left and died just five years later.

Now, there's a move afoot to provide justice to their descendants. Los Angeles County officials on Friday said they are working with state lawmakers on legislation that would return the property -- worth perhaps $75 million -- to the family.​

 

[civilwarbuff]

"We reject racism, hate, intolerance and exclusion. Today's residents are not responsible for the actions of others 100 years ago."
An assertion that the left should pay attention to when discussing remedies to past wrongs.....

 

[Pommer]

"We reject racism, hate, intolerance and exclusion. Today's residents are not responsible for the actions of others 100 years ago."
An assertion that the left should pay attention to when discussing remedies to past wrongs.....

3/5 of an argument!?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

"We reject racism, hate, intolerance and exclusion. Today's residents are not responsible for the actions of others 100 years ago."
An assertion that the left should pay attention to when discussing remedies to past wrongs.....

They paid for the land. Then it was stolen. So, It basically stolen property. So, they should get their property back. I believe the city took over it.

 

[CitizenD]

"We reject racism, hate, intolerance and exclusion. Today's residents are not responsible for the actions of others 100 years ago."
An assertion that the left should pay attention to when discussing remedies to past wrongs.....

The city took it.

The city still exists as the same legal entity.

The city is giving it back.

What is hard to understand about responsibility?

 

[civilwarbuff]

3/5 of an argument!?

Nope, just a reminder that the people of today are not responsible for the injustices of the past only for THEY do now.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The city took it.

The city still exists as the same legal entity.

The city is giving it back.

What is hard to understand about responsibility?

They paid for the land. Then it was stolen. So, It basically stolen property. So, they should get their property back. I believe the city took over it.

Most likely the land on which you live right now once belonged to Native Americans. Ready to give it back?....or pay for it again?

 

[SummerMadness]

Most likely the land on which you live right now once belonged to Native Americans. Ready to give it back?....or pay for it again?

Why are you so worked up about a family getting back what is rightfully theirs?

Talking about the past or taking responsibility for the past is only a problem if it involves recognition of racism in the United States. It's just so odd, the people that often trumpet the Confederacy want you to ignore Jim Crow and slavery. It just makes no sense.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Why are you so worked up about a family getting back what is rightfully theirs?

I'm not. Give them the land. Draw out the lines, tear down what needs to go and give them the land to do with as they please. After all, anything built there was built on stolen land so return the land.

Talking about the past or taking responsibility for the past is only a problem if it involves recognition of racism in the United States. It's just so odd, the people that often trumpet the Confederacy want you to ignore Jim Crow and slavery. It just makes no sense.

What makes no sense is trying to place the blame of past wrongs on the present generation. I don't ignore Jim Crow and slavery. Not sure where you get any such idea; certainly not from me. However, I am not a democrat which is where those wrongs were primarily based.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

They paid for the land. Then it was stolen. So, It basically stolen property.

It was lawfully purchased under eminent domain laws, laws that are still on the books today.

 

[Goonie]

It was lawfully purchased under eminent domain laws, laws that are still on the books today.

To create a park never built. Weird that, I wonder why?

 

[Triumvirate]

Why are you so worked up about a family getting back what is rightfully theirs?

Talking about the past or taking responsibility for the past is only a problem if it involves recognition of racism in the United States. It's just so odd, the people that often trumpet the Confederacy want you to ignore Jim Crow and slavery. It just makes no sense.

It of course makes sense, if you want to frame the loser confederacy in terms of euphemisms like state's rights and southern heritage - but not all the icky things they did along the way.

I'm sure we'll be back to property rights being very, very important the next time they want to complain about property damage during a protest they don't agree with.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

To create a park never built. Weird that, I wonder why?

According to the link in the OP, the land is a park today. I wonder what the local community thinks about seeing their public property simply given away...

 

[Goonie]

According to the link in the OP, the land is a park today. I wonder what the local community thinks about seeing their public property simply given away...

'The city left the land vacant for several decades after it took ownership in 1929.
Today, the property is now a park with a lawn, parking lot and a lifeguard training facility.'

You read the article right? It was left vacant for decades. Now why would you misrepresent the Artie you claim to have read?

Well thanks for giving the southern democrat point of view.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I certainly would like to see a every parcel of land taken by eminent domain returned to the family of the original owners.

 

[Goonie]

I certainly would like to see a every parcel of land taken by eminent domain returned to the family of the original owners.

Would be messy. But land taken by eminent domain and then not used for the stated purpose for decades as in this case, yep return.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Would be messy. But land taken by eminent domain and then not used for the stated purpose for decades as in this case, yep return.

Land immorally appropriated by eminent domain for any purpose ought to be returned to its rightful owners. If the government wishes to acquire property it needs to find a willing seller.

 

[Goonie]

Land immorally appropriated by eminent domain for any purpose ought to be returned to its rightful owners. If the government wishes to acquire property it needs to find a willing seller.

So if you have no willing seller no border wall? What about highways etc.

To use eminent domain govt must show there is no other option.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

'The city left the land vacant for several decades after it took ownership in 1929.
Today, the property is now a park with a lawn, parking lot and a lifeguard training facility.'

You read the article right? It was left vacant for decades. Now why would you misrepresent the Artie you claim to have read?

Well thanks for giving the southern democrat point of view.

You said the park was never built.

 

[Goonie]

Deleted, due to flaming.