About a century ago, Willa and Charles Bruce were forced to sell a small strip of beach property that they had developed a few miles south of Los Angeles. The municipal authorities claimed they wanted to develop a park on the land, but the real reason they forced the sale is that the Bruces were Black and the white community didn't want them there—or the Black customers they catered to.
It took a while, but last year activists finally forced the county of Los Angeles to return the property to the Bruces' descendants. But then on Tuesday things changed:
Kavon Ward vividly remembers the sunny day in September of 2021 when she won. When Black people won....Ward didn’t know then what we all know now. That just six months after receiving the deed to the property, the descendants of Willa and Charles Bruce would decide to sell Bruce’s Beach back to Los Angeles County for $20 million.
....“I am disappointed,” Ward told me after the family announced its decision last week....“The people worked together to help them get this land back, but the people weren’t included in the decision,” said Ward, who learned of it after getting off a flight and receiving a barrage of frantic texts. “So a lot of people feel slighted.”
I have a lot of reasons to be skeptical of the reparations movement, and someday maybe I'll write about it. But this is one of them: I can't help wondering if it would cause more discord and factionalism within the Black community than it's worth.¹
After all, this was practically an ideal case. There was no question that the land had been unfairly taken from two specific people. There was no question who the descendants were. The amount of money the descendants got was large compared to any plausible broad reparations settlement. And nobody lost anything, since the property will continue to be the same thing it's always been: a beach and a park open to the public.
And yet, all it takes is the most ordinary act in the world—selling a piece of property and splitting up the money—to cause a bitter backlash. When you read stuff like this it's hard to believe that a statewide or nationwide program of reparations could truly be made to work.
¹This is in addition to the obvious backlash it would create within the white community.
I guess don’t see what the problem is, it’s a park open to the general public and the descendants got the compensation their ancestors should have gotten.
What did Ward expect them to do with the property? It seems keeping it a park is the best use for the public, what’s the alternative?
I agree with your take, but will propose a different (more cynical) one:
I'm shocked, shocked, shocked, to find that Black people also recognize that in modern America, everything has a price tag. Everything. Everything. Maybe if people didn't want this family to do as every instruction, every message, every single advertisement, urged, and monetize their assets, we ought to have not made "markets in everything" the motto of our country.
I'm reminded of when the Mortgage Bankers' Association defaulted on their headquarters building's mortgage ("no recourse loan, huzzah!") at the same time that they were chiding all Americans that defaulting on their home loans was a moral failing.
Shorter: Capitalism for me, socialism for thee.
@erick
Correct. There is no problem. What did anybody expect? This is the exact outcome that was most likely and most just.
Whether the "reparations" are in fact dollars or acres of land, why should anybody care. If the descendants were to keep the land, what would they do? Uproot their families and move back to California? Not likely. Sell it do developers to build a few more homes? I would hope not. Sell it back and keep it a park? Yes, indeed.
I used to live a few blocks away (oblivious at the time to the park's history). Having a few lots of undeveloped land there is far more valuable than one more apartment building.
The idea that this case is an argument against reparations seems silly to me.
Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week.
Visit this article for more details.. http://incomebyus.blogspot.com/
The problem isn't what they decided to do with the property. The problem is that there are a bunch of people who were involved in the process who were not consulted on the decision to sell it back to the county. The problem is that, even in a case this clear cut, there is now a group that is hurt.
And it isn't even the case that they shouldn't be hurt. Yes, in a legal sense, it became the descendants' property, to dispose of as they please. But they were not the only ones involved in the fight. There were a lot of people who helped them, who fought alongside them. Who became intensely invested in what happened to the property. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they felt like they ought to be involved in the decision of what to do next.
On the other hand, the descendants would be justifiably hurt if a bunch of those who they thought of as allies then demanded that they be involved. It was, after all, their property, not the property of their allies. There is no way that this could have been resolved without a lot of ill will getting generated.
This was a simple case. The fights that would occur in a broader successful reparations fight would be much, much worse. I'm not sure that that means that it shouldn't happen. But everyone involved should be prepared for the fact that they will be creating angry people among their own allies.
In an ideal world, reparations strike me as a perfectly fair, perhaps even obvious, goal.
In our actual world filled as it is, for better or for worse, with an array of human beings afflicted to a greater or lesser extent with the well-known contagion of human nature, reparations are possibly the single most effective method for the Left to fracture itself to pieces while uniting its opposition and handing the country over to far right fascists like a Christmas present.
"reparations are possibly the single most effective method for the Left to fracture itself to pieces while uniting its opposition and handing the country over to far right fascists like a Christmas present."
This .
The couple in question were a century removed from the folks who owned it - it's no wonder that they decided they'd rather have the cash from selling it.
I suspect that even if the Bruces hadn't been forced out by racism, they probably would have sold it over the years. It makes me think of how I was doing one of those pick-your-fruit farm things here, and the farmer offhandedly mentioned that he was the fourth generation doing it - and there would be no fifth generation, because his kids didn't want to be farmers and the land was far more valuable as real estate than as an orchard (bummer for the trees - you kind of wish they could be transplanted elsewhere like a park).
This is what I did when I inherited my parents farm. I already have a job that I hate, two is one too many. And it wasn’t gonna be free, probably $400k.
Easy decision to sell.
I don't get this. What were they supposed to do with the property? Getting a zoning change and getting past the Coastal Commission would take years and be very costly. Meanwhile they have property taxes to deal with and the insurance costs. The family was robbed back in the day. Now they are whole.
The question isn't what else they should have done with the property. It's whether or not those people who helped them along the way should have had a say in what happened. And there is no good answer to that question, and these problems are inevitable.
Were "those people" also helping to pay the property taxes and other expenses associated with ownership? Even apart from the fact that they don't possess a share of the title to the property, I see no basis for their help towards achieving the restoration of the rightful ownership as providing some sort of claim to decide what happens to the property afterwards.
Just what did those "others" expect to happen to an undeveloped and most likely undevelopable tract in coastal Los Angeles County? What were the heirs supposed to do - hold a meeting and have a vote? That strikes me as bogus as the original seizure.
Is this even "reparations" in the sense that the term is widely used? All I see is the undoing of an unjustified seizure of private property by a government entity made simple because that entity retained the property.
There actually is a good answer to that question It's "no, the people who helped should not have a say because it's not their property".
Saying that unrelated "allies" should be involved in the decision process after a family receives reparations (in whatever form) is like saying people who fought for women's suffrage should have had input into how women voted after the fact. Of course they shouldn't.
These allies fought for a just outcome for the family. They were successful and that just outcome was reached so that's the end of it as far as any allies are concerned. Anything that happens after that is no one else's business.
All three of the responses to my comment make the same mistake: an assumption that making an obvious decision means that there is no problem. This is absolutely, categorically not true. It may not be reasonable for the others who were a part of the process to expect that they will be consulted. That completely fails to reckon with human nature. Those involved will be angered by it. It will happen.
And, as Kevin said, this is the simplest, most clear cut sort of case that reparations can fall into. Any other instance will be murkier, involving people whose claim that they should be consulted and receive reparations is stronger than it is here. If you think that we can go through that process without producing a legion of new grievances, you simply aren't taking actual human behavior into consideration.
"Those involved will be angered by it. It will happen."
Yes, but who cares? And, who cares? Yes, they may feel that way but those people are being unreasonable. Should we make a habit of appeasing all unreasonable people? No. No we should not.
This is the reason why I have always favored reparations in the form of free education (University and or trade school) for black children. It would give THEM the opportunity to enter the work force with an education that was denied to their parents and or grand parents. It would then be up to THEM to succeed but they would have the tools they need to make it happen
Its a "freebie" with the added benefit that they would have to "work" to make it. At that point both ends of the political spectrum as well as a generation of black children should be very happy and hopefully a whole generation would be given a hand out and a hand up to lift themselves out of poverty.
But to just give a hand out would set MAGA world on fire
To give just a hand up would set liberal world on fire.
This is a great post, Vog. Thanks.
Maybe I've skimmed too rapidly, but I don't quite understand this post, or why it's an example of why reparations won't work (for the record I'm not just skeptical of the reparations movement; I flat out oppose it*).
But what's the problem here? The descendants got their property back. And the majority decided they wanted the cash more, so they sold it. I probably would've too. All we get is a quote by one of the descendants saying he's "disappointed."
What did I miss? Nothing about this sounds very "bitter." More behind the paywall?
*The policy described here seems eminently just, however, and is not what I think of as being class "reparations." Records existed of a clear-cut, wrongful taking of property from specific people a hundred years ago.
An in-paywalled version of the story can be read here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11604925/Relative-says-original-black-owners-LA-beach-club-NOT-sold-land-county.html
Apparently Ward was a community activist who was instrumental in getting the property back to its rightful owners but is disappointed with what they chose to do with it.
The problem is that there is no way that the question of how the decision to be made about what to do with the property can be answered that won't lead to major fractures in the community that won the fight.
yeah, reparations has always struck me as a legally and morally correct course of action that is logistically and politically pretty much impossible to implement.
The way to do reparations is to make all African-American votes count 1+1/3 power for 75 years, to make up symbolically for the 2/3rds extra voting power given to the South from 1789 until 1865. (Yes, I know my math is off. Marketing simplicity matters in politics.) This avoids the sticky issue of cash, lets the A-As decide for themselves what they want to do with the power, encourages people to read a little history, and encourages political participation.
3/5ths extra voting power that should have been, obviously. I should do a little reading myself.
Always nice to see when someone understands that the problem with the 3/5ths clause isn't that slaves were counted as less than a "full" person, but that they were counted at all -- with the voting power going to their owners.
Yeah, I think very few people know anything about this at all, or understand that it was a gift to the south.
As regards my very dumb mistake about the fractions/percentages involved, I tend to think an opening bid would be 1.4x voting power, and I'd settle for 1.25x.
Let the AAs vote for more education funding if they want... or whatever they want.
I realize the intense reaction this would cause (though I think the reaction would be a bit more muted than if cash payments were proposed) but it would also cause a lot of discussion about the very fact you are pointing out -- that during the founding of the country in its first 75 years, black voting power was given to whites in the south, very specifically.
This does not appear to be a good analogue for a widespread reparations program.
Giving one guy some land that has a specific zoning requirement doesn't feel at all similar to what anyone has ever proposed for reparations.
No reason to think that reactions to this scenario would be similar to wildly different scenarios.
Correct. The reactions to different successful reparations fights would be much, much worse. The payouts would be a lot less straightforward. Figuring out who is owed what would be a lot less straightforward. The factionalism that would come in its wake would be catastrophic.
But this story is not evidence of that. Not at all.
That's your own personal opinion or bias. If reparations came to pass there would certainly a huge market for people who want to hear stories about those who are upset or 'factionalized'. Fox News will have to create a new channel.
That you can find a guy who is bothered by an outcome is not really news....and it doesn't really provide an argument against reparations in any way.
That's because you can't buy penance. The whole idea of reparations is a giant sale of indulgences. White people who support it think they are going to buy racial harmony and justice. They aren't. Black people who support it think it will make them whole. It won't.
I’ll take a shot at why Ward and the others who fought for the Bruce descendants are disappointed by the sale of the land back to the county. …..
The activists see the land as a symbol that goes beyond the Bruce family. They were hoping that the land would remain in black hands, controlled by black people, for the benefit of the “black community,” not just the family. And what that benefit for the community means would involve input from local black residents. And I think they are wrong. Justice means the family regains the land and does with it whatever they want. That it remains a public park is the best possible result.
…. Just look at the wording of the article: “Kavon Ward vividly remembers ….. (w)hen Black people won....” …. Excuse me? Who won what? It’s not a direct quote. It’s the reporter paraphrasing. And I’ll be nice and assume that some editor somewhere at the LA Times made dang sure that the reporter accurately reflected Ward’s (and the other activists’) attitude.
"The activists see the land as a symbol that goes beyond the Bruce family."
That's their problem, not the Bruce family's. No one forced them to get involved. And selling the land back to the County rather than some developer, are they saying it's not a benefit to the whole community? In what way?
This is somewhat comparable to Jews whose artwork was stolen by the Nazis are getting restitution from major museums. At times they are paid in money, sometimes they get the art back and sell it.
I'm happy for the descendants of those who were ripped off years ago, as well as the tacit admission of the harm done in the first place. And I am a little sad that it came down to cash, as everything does in our society. But I'm also thinking that it's a good thing -- and possibly a significant sacrifice -- that the land will be kept as a park and a public beach. $20 million seems like a bargain price for beachfront land in Los Angeles. I know it's probably not zoned for high-rise luxury condos, but if a high-rise luxury condo builder owned that land, it soon would be.
"...if a high-rise luxury condo builder owned that land, it soon would be."
Not likely. Every house in that picture is a million + property and lots of those folks are lawyers and others who know how to work the system and run the local politics. I lived for forty years in those three small coastal NIMBYvilles. Then there's the coastal Commission.
@aaall1
Many of the rich people living in those million dollar houses got that way by bulldozing beautiful natural environments and building stuff. I'm glad the county got control of that land, but it's prime real estate. I'm only guessing (and I lived there too), but it's never a smart play to bet against wealth and greed.
"One of the things I’ve been trying to get folks to realize is that when we think about reparations, there’s just like this negative connotation almost attached to it where people just automatically assume [it’s about] money,” Ward said.
If it's not then you better have a strategy to show that it's more than just money otherwise it's a political no-go, even in California.
Oh and Chinese community in the state might want to have a word about reparations for the abuse taken in building the railroads.
Bottom line is reparations are already taking place among universities, businesses, foundations and such, even small government units. But it's probably not going to be much bigger than that to avoid intra-political division and potential negative political backlash (far bigger than the white community).
To me the solution is to set up a yearly thousand dollart UBI similar to that in Alaska and if you want to call it reparations, be my guest.
Shorter version: Government should never do things that might cause a backlash of some kind.
Here's an argument reparations promoters make, especially Ta Nehisi Coates: It should be an unrestricted grant of money because how dare you treat black people like children who don't know how to spend their own money.
So . . . . why is what the Bruce family decides to do with their property any business of Kavon Ward? Or anyone else for that matter? It's nice that they helped to right an injustice. But why should the victims of that injustice have to clear their decisions with them now?
Most people would be greatly served by developing a much finer sense of minding their own business.