Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads

Black Family's California Beach Property Stolen In 1924 To Be Returned By County... Now Worth Millions....

Simply_Black

Simply_Black

International
International Member
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/12/us/bruces-beach-los-angeles-county-black-family/index.html

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.

"The Bruces had their California dream stolen from them," said county Supervisor Janice Hahn. "Generations of their descendants ... almost certainly would have been millionaires if they had been able to keep their property and their successful business."

For a short time, Bruce's Beach offered Black families a place to enjoy the rich taste of California life. Most importantly, it renewed their feelings of hope and unity. The couple purchased the land for $1,225 in 1912, and built several facilities, including a cafe and changing rooms.
Some White neighbors resented the Black beachgoers and the popularity of the resort, a Bruce family spokesperson told CNN.

White supremacists and Klan members posted "no trespassing' signs" and slashed tires so Black families would avoid the area. The KKK attempted to set the property on fire and succeeded in burning down a local Black family's home nearby, county officials said.
Hahn told reporters that when scare tactics didn't work, Manhattan Beach declared eminent domain in 1924. The couple eventually were paid about $14,125.
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.
It no longer belongs to Manhattan Beach. The property was transferred to the state and to Los Angeles County in 1995.
 
tallblacknyc

tallblacknyc

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
Was just talking about this to someone last week about black possessions and wealth that were stolen from us and denied our progression and what has stalled us throughout history in this country.. no other people in this country has faced so many obstacles that have hindered and prolonged our complete excellence than black people.. I hate it that people try to overlook all these roadblocks and try to question why the state of black people isn’t as high up the ladder as it should be.. as I tell people if I told you to go win the 400 yard dash and I will award you money for everytime you win, but as soon as the whistle is blown I shoot you in both your ankles how many times do you think you will win the race? Well that’s what amerikkka does to black people and yet people have the nerve to go why aren’t black people winning mad gold medals..there’s your answer
 
lightbright

lightbright

Master Pussy Poster
BGOL Investor
Los Angeles County votes to return beach property taken from Black owners in Jim Crow era
By Meron Moges-Gerbi and Cheri Mossburg, CNN

Updated 2:47 PM ET, Wed June 29, 2022

220628143421-01-bruces-beach-los-angeles-property-return-super-169.jpg

In an aerial view, Bruce's Beach, center, is seen wedged between expensive real estate on April 19, 2021, in Manhattan Beach, California.

(CNN)A stretch of prime Southern California beachfront real estate was returned to the descendants of its Black owners Tuesday, nearly a century after the parcel was taken by the city of Manhattan Beach.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to give the land back to the family of the owners, Charles and Willa Bruce.
Known as Bruce's Beach, the resort had offered Black families a place to enjoy the California life and was a labor of love for the couple. They purchased the land in 1912 for $1,225 and built several facilities, including a cafe and changing rooms.
But harassment from White neighbors and the Ku Klux Klan tore away at their dreams.

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 property -- now estimated to be worth $20 million -- was transferred to Los Angeles County in 1995. The houses directly next to the property have price tags of around $7 million each.

Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed legislation that would enable the county to return the beachfront property to their descendants.
The new law was authored by Sen. Steve Bradford, who sits on the state's newly formed reparations task force.
"This is what reparations look like," said Bradford, insisting that the county is not giving anything to the Bruce family, yet simply returning their stolen property.
Tuesday's vote finalized a proposal presented by Holly Mitchell, chair of the county board of supervisors, to give back the stretch of land that is now a park with a lawn and lifeguard training facility. "We are not returning this land; we are giving it back to its rightful owners," Mitchell said, calling it "a historic moment for our county."
The vote outlined plans to release the beachfront property back to the Bruce family. County officials will rent the property from the Bruces under a 24-month lease agreement totaling $413,000 per year to maintain the facility.
"All the terror that is still in our hearts regarding these criminal acts that were perpetrated against innocent people of our family, it's important for people to understand, more so than the money that was lost. We lost our family to this," family spokesperson Duane Yellow Feather Shepard told CNN's Stephanie Elam.
"This is one step toward justice" he added.

220629131957-bruces-beach-los-angeles-property-return-super-169.jpg

Kavon Ward, the founder of Justice for Bruce's Beach, is pictured at Manhattan Beach on Tuesday.

County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who worked on the motion with Mitchell, held back tears as she told the board, "This will be one of the most important things I have ever done."
The decision was the result of a two-year effort by the grassroots movement, Justice for Bruce's Beach.
Kavon Ward, founder of Justice for Bruce's Beach, told CNN the decision Tuesday was the fulfillment of her dream to see the land returned.
"I feel some sense of peace. I feel joy. I feel honored that the most high would use me as a vessel to help make this happen, to be the catalyst for this happening," she said.


Bruce's Beach: Los Angeles County votes to return beach property taken from Black owners in Jim Crow era - CNN
 
lightbright

lightbright

Master Pussy Poster
BGOL Investor
tallblacknyc said:
Was just talking about this to someone last week about black possessions and wealth that were stolen from us and denied our progression and what has stalled us throughout history in this country.. no other people in this country has faced so many obstacles that have hindered and prolonged our complete excellence than black people.. I hate it that people try to overlook all these roadblocks and try to question why the state of black people isn’t as high up the ladder as it should be.. as I tell people if I told you to go win the 400 yard dash and I will award you money for everytime you win, but as soon as the whistle is blown I shoot you in both your ankles how many times do you think you will win the race? Well that’s what amerikkka does to black people and yet people have the nerve to go why aren’t black people winning mad gold medals..there’s your answer
Click to expand...
I can't stand the cacs of today that are whining about how they didn't take anything..... while shit that the Nazi's stole in WWII gets returned


.
 
Strait_Laced

Strait_Laced

knowledge alone ≠ power
OG Investor
ride past that landmark all the time. ghosts of the ancestors. can't imagine the conditions for that family went through a century ago...not exactly integrated even today
 
Coyote

Coyote

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
It occurs to me that, unless the Bruce family is already very wealthy, not including the value of this property, their decision to sell the property back might have been financially necessary. They might not have had any choice.

The property tax rate in Manhattan Beach is 1.11455801%, and this property has an assessed value of $75,000,000. So, the property tax on this land is aprox $835,918.50 a year. The first year's property tax is usually added onto the purchase price of the land, but this is a transfer of property not a sale, so there is a question of how the first year's tax would be dealt with. But, unless the agreement between the State, LA County, and the Bruces required the city of Manhattan Beach to waive the first tax payment, it is possible that, upon transfer of the land, they would have immediately owed the city of Manhattan Beach almost $836,000. Then they would have had to Pay Manhattan Beach a similar amount every year, and if they were unable to pay, the City could seize the property and sell it for back taxes. All this on a piece of property that does not generate any income.

They could, of course, seek a private buyer for the property. But this is a city park, close to the ocean. How easy or difficult it would be to sell this land would probably depend on what restrictions on the use of the land were put in place by local zoning ordinances, as well as State and Federal environmental protection laws. If any of those laws would prevent a buyer from developing the land into condos, or some other money-making business, the Bruces could have a difficult time finding a buyer willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for a property he could not develop. So, instead of having to come up with $836,000 per year (which they might not have), on a piece of property that does not generate any income, the Bruces may have decided that their best, and only real, option was to take the $20 Million, and walk away free and clear.
 
xxxbishopxxx

xxxbishopxxx

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Coyote said:
It occurs to me that, unless the Bruce family is already very wealthy, not including the value of this property, their decision to sell the property back might have been financially necessary. They might not have had any choice.

The property tax rate in Manhattan Beach is 1.11455801%, and this property has an assessed value of $75,000,000. So, the property tax on this land is aprox $835,918.50 a year. The first year's property tax is usually added onto the purchase price of the land, but this is a transfer of property not a sale, so there is a question of how the first year's tax would be dealt with. But, unless the agreement between the State, LA County, and the Bruces required the city of Manhattan Beach to waive the first tax payment, it is possible that, upon transfer of the land, they would have immediately owed the city of Manhattan Beach almost $836,000. Then they would have had to Pay Manhattan Beach a similar amount every year, and if they were unable to pay, the City could seize the property and sell it for back taxes. All this on a piece of property that does not generate any income.

They could, of course, seek a private buyer for the property. But this is a city park, close to the ocean. How easy or difficult it would be to sell this land would probably depend on what restrictions on the use of the land were put in place by local zoning ordinances, as well as State and Federal environmental protection laws. If any of those laws would prevent a buyer from developing the land into condos, or some other money-making business, the Bruces could have a difficult time finding a buyer willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for a property he could not develop. So, instead of having to come up with $836,000 per year (which they might not have), on a piece of property that does not generate any income, the Bruces may have decided that their best, and only real, option was to take the $20 Million, and walk away free and clear.
Click to expand...
excellent and sensible analysis. The only thing missing is not taking into account the property value going up or down and thus affecting the property tax rate.

The sad reality is the state probably knew this would happen and why they were so willing to "give" this property back to the family. The state knew the family wouldn't be able to pay the taxes and upkeep. They gave them enough rope to hang themselves and patiently waited for them to jump at the lowball buyback clause.
 
D

durham

Rising Star
Platinum Member
prose00 said:
Classic example of why niggas cant have shit :angry::angry:

They selling the land back to the city for pennies on the dollar!! :smh::smh::smh:

2urbangirls.com

Bruce's Beach heirs to sell property back to LA County

News straight outta Inglewood, CA
2urbangirls.com 2urbangirls.com
Click to expand...

Ain't this about a bitch. A fucking 1 bedroom cottage, would rent for $,500-$1,000 a night foerever, on that beach. The damn lawyer is going to take half. Taxes will take 20-30% of the rest. Once they split the shit up, what's left a couple hundred thousand per family member.

Just rent that shit back to the State on a 100 year lease, for the lifeguard facility, like city buildings and parking lots. That land should have been an annuity for generations :smh:

It's better than nothing, and their ancestors helped seed the future, but damn these new kin fumbled the fucking bag. 20 gotdamn million wtf
 
blackpepper

blackpepper

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
prose00 said:
www.latimes.com

Family to sell Bruce's Beach property back to L.A. County for nearly $20 million

County officials say the Bruce family has agreed to sell the Bruce's Beach property in Manhattan Beach back to Los Angeles County for nearly $20 million.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
Click to expand...
They're doing this to realize the maximum current cash value of their assets. They don't want to gamble on its value and future revenue down the road. They'd have to take on partners to develop and manage it, and that's real complicated. As usual they want as much cash as the can get right now. From the outside its kinda sad, but I understand where they're coming from.
 
November 17

November 17

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Good breakdown (Thank you)!

I saw this in the Los Angeles Times article:

Attorney George Fatheree, who represents the family, said in an interview the sale was not unexpected and the family had always wanted to have the option to sell the property back to the county. He emphasized the sale was still a victory for the Bruce descendants, who would no longer have the land their grandparents were robbed of but instead the money they should have inherited.

“What was stolen from the family was the property, but what the property represented was the ability to create and preserve and group and pass down generational wealth. And by allowing the family now to have certainty in selling this property to the county, taking the proceeds of that sale, and investing it in their own futures — that’s restoring some of what the family lost,” Fatheree said. “I think we all need to respect the family’s decision to know what’s in its best interest.”

Fatheree said multiple factors contributed to the family’s decision. For one, he said, none of the descendants live in Southern California, and they were in stages of their life where they wanted money to invest.

He also said the land was not zoned for development, and the family members were wary of the years-long permitting fight they would need to wage if they wanted to start building.

“At the end of the day, what the family was very focused on was certainty and being able to access the proceeds of the sale,” he said.

County Board of Supervisors Chair Janice Hahn, who helped initiate the transfer, similarly characterized the sale not as an abrupt change, but as an example of reparations at work.

“They feel what is best for them is selling this property back to the county for nearly $20 million and finally rebuilding the generational wealth they were denied for nearly a century,” Hahn said in a statement. “This is what reparations look like and it is a model that I hope governments across the country will follow.”

The transfer of the property last year was hailed by some as a potential turning point in a nation with a long history of confiscating land from racial minorities, blocking them from the generational wealth that white residents enjoyed. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who signed Senate Bill 796 into law allowing the county to make the transfer, called the deal “catalytic.”


State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), who authored SB 796, said he supported the Bruces’ decision, framing the sale as the logical move given zoning requirements he said barred the family from fully developing the property. Currently, he said, it’s zoned only for public use.

“It’s bittersweet. I’m excited about the fact that the family can reap some monetary benefit from property that should have been in their family for 100 years had it not been stolen, but it’s disappointing that the family came to the conclusion of having to sell the property because they saw no long-term financial benefit,” he said. “I think they just saw the writing on the wall and said, ‘Hey, we might as well sell it right now while the market’s good.’”

Though surprising to some who cheered the Bruce’s Beach transfer as a rare reparations success story, a sale back to the county has always been an option. The transfer agreement the two parties hashed out last summer contained a two-year window in which the family could require the county to buy the land back for the value of the property — roughly $20 million. The county said in a statement the buyout option was put in the agreement at the family’s request.

A county team that worked alongside an attorney for the Bruce family conducted an economic analysis to determine the property’s value.



California



Coyote said:
It occurs to me that, unless the Bruce family is already very wealthy, not including the value of this property, their decision to sell the property back might have been financially necessary. They might not have had any choice.

The property tax rate in Manhattan Beach is 1.11455801%, and this property has an assessed value of $75,000,000. So, the property tax on this land is aprox $835,918.50 a year. The first year's property tax is usually added onto the purchase price of the land, but this is a transfer of property not a sale, so there is a question of how the first year's tax would be dealt with. But, unless the agreement between the State, LA County, and the Bruces required the city of Manhattan Beach to waive the first tax payment, it is possible that, upon transfer of the land, they would have immediately owed the city of Manhattan Beach almost $836,000. Then they would have had to Pay Manhattan Beach a similar amount every year, and if they were unable to pay, the City could seize the property and sell it for back taxes. All this on a piece of property that does not generate any income.

They could, of course, seek a private buyer for the property. But this is a city park, close to the ocean. How easy or difficult it would be to sell this land would probably depend on what restrictions on the use of the land were put in place by local zoning ordinances, as well as State and Federal environmental protection laws. If any of those laws would prevent a buyer from developing the land into condos, or some other money-making business, the Bruces could have a difficult time finding a buyer willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for a property he could not develop. So, instead of having to come up with $836,000 per year (which they might not have), on a piece of property that does not generate any income, the Bruces may have decided that their best, and only real, option was to take the $20 Million, and walk away free and clear.
Click to expand...
 
footloose

footloose

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Coyote said:
It occurs to me that, unless the Bruce family is already very wealthy, not including the value of this property, their decision to sell the property back might have been financially necessary. They might not have had any choice.

The property tax rate in Manhattan Beach is 1.11455801%, and this property has an assessed value of $75,000,000. So, the property tax on this land is aprox $835,918.50 a year. The first year's property tax is usually added onto the purchase price of the land, but this is a transfer of property not a sale, so there is a question of how the first year's tax would be dealt with. But, unless the agreement between the State, LA County, and the Bruces required the city of Manhattan Beach to waive the first tax payment, it is possible that, upon transfer of the land, they would have immediately owed the city of Manhattan Beach almost $836,000. Then they would have had to Pay Manhattan Beach a similar amount every year, and if they were unable to pay, the City could seize the property and sell it for back taxes. All this on a piece of property that does not generate any income.

They could, of course, seek a private buyer for the property. But this is a city park, close to the ocean. How easy or difficult it would be to sell this land would probably depend on what restrictions on the use of the land were put in place by local zoning ordinances, as well as State and Federal environmental protection laws. If any of those laws would prevent a buyer from developing the land into condos, or some other money-making business, the Bruces could have a difficult time finding a buyer willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for a property he could not develop. So, instead of having to come up with $836,000 per year (which they might not have), on a piece of property that does not generate any income, the Bruces may have decided that their best, and only real, option was to take the $20 Million, and walk away free and clear.
Click to expand...
So you saying owning it doesn’t generate any money
 
footloose

footloose

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
November 17 said:
Good breakdown (Thank you)!

I saw this in the Los Angeles Times article:

Attorney George Fatheree, who represents the family, said in an interview the sale was not unexpected and the family had always wanted to have the option to sell the property back to the county. He emphasized the sale was still a victory for the Bruce descendants, who would no longer have the land their grandparents were robbed of but instead the money they should have inherited.

“What was stolen from the family was the property, but what the property represented was the ability to create and preserve and group and pass down generational wealth. And by allowing the family now to have certainty in selling this property to the county, taking the proceeds of that sale, and investing it in their own futures — that’s restoring some of what the family lost,” Fatheree said. “I think we all need to respect the family’s decision to know what’s in its best interest.”

Fatheree said multiple factors contributed to the family’s decision. For one, he said, none of the descendants live in Southern California, and they were in stages of their life where they wanted money to invest.

He also said the land was not zoned for development, and the family members were wary of the years-long permitting fight they would need to wage if they wanted to start building.

“At the end of the day, what the family was very focused on was certainty and being able to access the proceeds of the sale,” he said.

County Board of Supervisors Chair Janice Hahn, who helped initiate the transfer, similarly characterized the sale not as an abrupt change, but as an example of reparations at work.

“They feel what is best for them is selling this property back to the county for nearly $20 million and finally rebuilding the generational wealth they were denied for nearly a century,” Hahn said in a statement. “This is what reparations look like and it is a model that I hope governments across the country will follow.”

The transfer of the property last year was hailed by some as a potential turning point in a nation with a long history of confiscating land from racial minorities, blocking them from the generational wealth that white residents enjoyed. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who signed Senate Bill 796 into law allowing the county to make the transfer, called the deal “catalytic.”


State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), who authored SB 796, said he supported the Bruces’ decision, framing the sale as the logical move given zoning requirements he said barred the family from fully developing the property. Currently, he said, it’s zoned only for public use.

“It’s bittersweet. I’m excited about the fact that the family can reap some monetary benefit from property that should have been in their family for 100 years had it not been stolen, but it’s disappointing that the family came to the conclusion of having to sell the property because they saw no long-term financial benefit,” he said. “I think they just saw the writing on the wall and said, ‘Hey, we might as well sell it right now while the market’s good.’”

Though surprising to some who cheered the Bruce’s Beach transfer as a rare reparations success story, a sale back to the county has always been an option. The transfer agreement the two parties hashed out last summer contained a two-year window in which the family could require the county to buy the land back for the value of the property — roughly $20 million. The county said in a statement the buyout option was put in the agreement at the family’s request.

A county team that worked alongside an attorney for the Bruce family conducted an economic analysis to determine the property’s value.



California
Click to expand...
So wait the land doesn’t generate any money ?
 
November 17

November 17

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
footloose said:
So wait the land doesn’t generate any money ?
Click to expand...
This is what I gathered from the Los Angeles Times article:
The county maintains a lifeguard training facility on the property. Since the property was transferred last summer, the county had been leasing it from the Bruces for $413,000 a year.
 
Coyote

Coyote

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Last night, I didn't see the part about the $413k 2-year lease. That may have been enough to keep them out of the red, in the near term. Although I don't know what the other expenses are, regarding owning & leasing out this property. However, I still believe that the family's decision to sell was understandable, and not necessarily a poor decision as some people have implied. The different family members are all older people, and none of them live in southern California, and apparently none of them were interested in being long-distance absentee land lords. According to their attorney the family was always considering selling the property and turning that cash into other types of investments for the family members. I'm glad to see them getting that opportunity.
 
The Plutonian

The Plutonian

The Anti Bullshitter
BGOL Investor
Coyote said:
It occurs to me that, unless the Bruce family is already very wealthy, not including the value of this property, their decision to sell the property back might have been financially necessary. They might not have had any choice.

The property tax rate in Manhattan Beach is 1.11455801%, and this property has an assessed value of $75,000,000. So, the property tax on this land is aprox $835,918.50 a year. The first year's property tax is usually added onto the purchase price of the land, but this is a transfer of property not a sale, so there is a question of how the first year's tax would be dealt with. But, unless the agreement between the State, LA County, and the Bruces required the city of Manhattan Beach to waive the first tax payment, it is possible that, upon transfer of the land, they would have immediately owed the city of Manhattan Beach almost $836,000. Then they would have had to Pay Manhattan Beach a similar amount every year, and if they were unable to pay, the City could seize the property and sell it for back taxes. All this on a piece of property that does not generate any income.

They could, of course, seek a private buyer for the property. But this is a city park, close to the ocean. How easy or difficult it would be to sell this land would probably depend on what restrictions on the use of the land were put in place by local zoning ordinances, as well as State and Federal environmental protection laws. If any of those laws would prevent a buyer from developing the land into condos, or some other money-making business, the Bruces could have a difficult time finding a buyer willing to pay tens of millions of dollars for a property he could not develop. So, instead of having to come up with $836,000 per year (which they might not have), on a piece of property that does not generate any income, the Bruces may have decided that their best, and only real, option was to take the $20 Million, and walk away free and clear.
Click to expand...

Or they could put it in a disabled veterans name and ownership and pay Pennie’s for the taxes. I definitely wouldn’t sell it back to them motherfuckers.
 
Strait_Laced

Strait_Laced

knowledge alone ≠ power
OG Investor
November 17 said:
This is what I gathered from the Los Angeles Times article:
The county maintains a lifeguard training facility on the property. Since the property was transferred last summer, the county had been leasing it from the Bruces for $413,000 a year.
Click to expand...

yep. not much there, other than the lifeguard building/park/outside gym space/open space.

this area is multimillion dollar beachfront homes, getting past all the city/local/entities like coastal commission ordinances for a potential developer is a big ask...it takes time, money, and political influence...all of which is in short supply for the descendants, some of whom are themselves very old now

they looked at the circumstances, and decided to take care of existing family members now rather than fight for an uncertain future. can't blame them. it's their legacy to determine, no one else's

every time i pass that property, i think, how incredible that someone black was able to do all this in the early 1900's...considering that to this day it's not a place you see a ton of black people...salute to the bruces

bb.png


1920
 

Make a Contribution to Remove NSFW Ads
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top