California Passes Indian Giver-Style Black Reparations

You’ve probably heard that a black family that lost its valuable Los Angeles property in 1924 is getting it back thanks to a unanimous vote of the City Council on grounds of reparation for the land being stolen from them. You probably didn’t hear that that black family purchased the land illegally in order to force racial strife and have already been compensated for the land at a generous rate. And the government is screwing them over MORE than ever before!

Pacific-Front Parcel Taken From Black Family in 1924 Returned to Rightful Owners

h ttps://

By Dan Avery 13 September 2021

Descendants of a couple who built a beachfront resort for Black families in Los Angeles more than a century ago—only to have it taken away by racist government policies—are finally able to reclaim the land, officials announced Friday. Viewed in today’s frothy real estate terms, the property could be worth roughly $75 million.

Migrating from New Mexico in the early 20th century, Willa and Charles Bruce were among the first Black people to settle in what would become Manhattan Beach, California. In 1912, they bought two parcels of land on Highland Avenue for less than $2,000 and built a beachfront lodge with a café, dance hall, cabanas, and bathing suit rentals.

An advertisement in the Liberator, an early 20th-century Black newspaper, announced that the June 17, 1912, opening of Bruce Beach Front would be a “grand affair.”

There’s our first clue that all is not well in White Guilt Land. They announced the opening of their cafe in an abolitionist, racist (and also feminist) newspaper to advertise they were open for business in…

The lodge is considered the first resort for African Americans on the West Coast, opened at a time when Jim Crow laws barred them from most seashores.

…an intentionally white neighborhood. Colonization is a bad thing, yes? Bueller?

The only other black-friendly beach was called the Inkwell in nearby Santa Monica. If this lack of beach availability sounds unfair to you reflect that…

1. There very few blacks in California in 1912.

2. Blacks don’t like the beach, to judge from my observations of them living in Los Angeles and other beachfront parts of California.

3. People still understood that racial segregation was a good thing. This “Bruce’s Beach” effort was intentionally incendiary and driven by abolitionists.

“Wherever we have tried to buy land for a beach resort, we have been refused,” Willa Bruce told the Los Angeles Times in 1912. “But I own this land and I am going to keep it.”

The couple was able to purchase the property because prominent real estate developer George Peck chose to ignore segregation policies in the area and sold land to African Americans, allowing a thriving Black American community to emerge.

Not just colonization, but a literally criminal sale of the land. One case of White Savior Complex led to years of strife. Per wikipedia, even Peck came to regret his altruism and walled off his property to force significant detours in order to reach the beach.

Almost immediately, guests were harassed by white neighbors and members of the Klu Klux Klan, who reportedly slashed the guests’ tires and set fire to a mattress under the main building. Furthermore, fake “10-minute only” parking signs were posted to vex visitors from out of town.

Today, it’s the enclave-liberal residents who post fake parking-restriction signs. More on this in a minute.

Finally, in 1924, the Manhattan Beach City Council used eminent domain to condemn the Bruces’ lodge, along with other nearby Black-owned properties, and claim the land. The alleged reason was to build a park, but according to a report prepared by the city council, contemporary articles and historical documents indicate the real motive was that “white neighbors resented the resort’s growing popularity and prosperity of its African American owners.”

Twelve years weren’t enough for them to learn how to coexist. The government finally gave up and the people who should never have been there in the first place, were the ones targeted for removal. All was well.

The families sued, claiming they were the victims of a racially motivated removal campaign. Eventually, the Bruces were awarded $14,500, but their lodge was razed in 1927, and they were unable to re-open anywhere else in Manhattan Beach.

I presume that the $14,500 was the compensation finally agreed upon for the eminent domain. That is not a seizure of land, it is a forced sale of land for its appraised value. This story claims they bought the land for <$2k then eventually got >$14k for it a decade later. I don’t see a victim here, other than the neighbors that the abolitions unilaterally decided needed more color in their ‘hoods.

In the years that followed, Black families still tried to come to Bruce’s Beach, but police began charging them with trespassing. NAACP members were arrested for holding a “swim-in” in 1927.

There goes the illusion that this was all about KKK being meanies.

Despite the alleged park plan, Bruce’s Beach sat empty for decades. It wasn’t until the 1960s, when officials worried families might sue to regain their land, that an actual park was built on part of the Bruces’ parcel.

At this point, they had no legal right to the land. They’d already sued, the case settled and paid out, done deal. But the 1960s was when all kinds of anti-white, black race grievance-style laws began getting passed.

In 1948, ownership of the park was ceded to the state, which transferred it to Los Angeles County in 1995 to oversee maintenance. It went through several name changes until it was finally christened Bruce’s Beach Park in 2007, thanks to the efforts of then-mayor Mitch Ward, the only Black elected official in Manhattan Beach history.

For years historians, activists, and Bruce family members have advocated for the return of the land, which is probably worth $75 million today, CNN reported. L.A. County board of supervisors member Janice Hahn became aware of the campaign last year, as the death of George Floyd fueled an overdue radical reckoning across the U.S. Hahn began looking into how to rectify a century-old wrong. “Bruce’s Beach became a place where Black families traveled from far and wide to be able to enjoy the simple pleasure of a day at the beach,” she said in April, when the council announced plans to return the land.

Except they didn’t. I go outside in California way more than the typical resident and guess what, there are no Blacks enjoying nature. It’s not only because the Latinos pushed them out.

“The Bruces had their California dream stolen from them,” Hahn said. “And this was an injustice inflicted not just upon Willa and Charles Bruce but on generations of their descendants who almost certainly would have been millionaires if they had been able to keep this property and their successful business.”

I would’ve been a millionaire, too, if my government hadn’t decided to import the entire Turd World. Cash only, please!

The city’s ability to sell or transfer the property was blocked by regulations requiring legislation to change. The California state Senate passed the final vote unanimously on Thursday, the last day of the legislative session, to formally allow L.A. County to return Bruce’s Beach to members of the Bruce family. It’s believed to be the first time that land has been returned to a Black family as reparation for past discrimination. California Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to sign the bipartisan bill.


Bill SB 796

h ttps://

This bill would exclude specified property located in Manhattan State Beach, commonly known as Bruce’s Beach, from the requirement that the property be used only for public recreation and beach purposes in perpetuity and from those specified restrictions.

Blacks can already visit and make use of it, apparently. But this specific family wasn’t able to use it as a weapon against racially peaceful communities.

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The United States of America has never fully addressed the institution and practice of 250 years of chattel slavery; the ideology that established and maintained it has left an indelible stain on the fabric of this nation and is embedded in virtually every facet of American culture and civil society.

The 1619 Project resurfaces to justify that “250 years” lie. If the “stain is indelible” then there’s no point in trying to remove it… and speaking of THAT…

(h) Willa and Charles Bruce were deprived of their rightful property, as well as their right to derive the benefits of that property, including the freedom and fortune of operating their own business on their land.

Wait for it…

No new or expanded commercial development shall be allowed on the granted real property.

BOOM, BABY!!! “You can have your land back because your ancestor’s business was shut down, but you still can’t operate a business on it.”

Congratulations on your non-victory, victicrats. Bruce’s descendants will buy the land at its 1975 value, sell it at the 2021 value, blow the money on drugs and hookers and be back in a week for another handout. Meanwhile, the developers will score big-time.

No wild parties, either, because LA City Council lockdowns. Don’t even think about a water tap or new construction.  And budget for some SERIOUS bribes to the Coastal Commission, too, because their buy-in was not solicited in this specially approved sale.

End segue

Manhattan Beach resident Kavon Ward, who had been petitioning for the property’s return, told NBC News she was “ecstatic” over the vote. “I never would have fathomed that this would have happened so quickly. I was prepared to fight for years if not decades.”

Ward believes the property should come with financial reparations too. “They need to pay for the stripping of generational wealth,” Ward told KABC 7 in March. “This family could have been wealthy, they could have passed on wealth to other family members. Manhattan Beach could have been more culturally diverse… There would have been more black people here.”

The spot where the Bruce family lodge once stood is now home to a lifeguard training station.

They couldn’t wait one week before demanding another handout. Heck, they couldn’t even wait to receive this one before demanding another.

But it’s not about righting the wrongs of the past. It’s about spending the public treasury in return for votes and favors… how every single democracy in history has died.

Today Manhattan Beach is a wealthy enclave on the south shore of Santa Monica Bay, with some of the most expensive real estate in the United States. It’s home to about 35,000 residents, less than 1% of whom are Black.

Family members have not said whether they will sell the land to developers, lease it back to the county to maintain the lifeguard station, or keep it for themselves.

It’ll be “sell the land to developers”. For the proof, I go back to the text of SB 697:

(1) Parcel 1.Approximately 3.83 acres of unimproved land, known as Las Tunas State Beach.
(2) Parcel 2.Approximately 31.21 acres of improved land, known as Topanga State Beach.
(3) Parcel 3.Approximately 46.34 acres of improved land, being a portion of Manhattan State Beach.
(4) Parcel 4.Approximately 26.03 acres of improved land, known as Redondo State Beach.
(5) Parcel 5.Approximately 18.07 acres of improved land, known as Royal Palms State Beach.
(6) Parcel 6.Approximately 30.64 acres of improved land, being a portion of Point Dume State Beach.
(7) Parcel 7.Approximately 15.12 acres of unimproved land, known as Dan Blocker State Beach, and that includes Latigo Shores.
(8) Parcel 8.Approximately 10.50 acres of improved land, being a portion of Malibu Lagoon State Beach, known as Surfrider Beach.

Well, lookit that. They’re loudly praising ONE of those new parcels becoming unburdened by “for public use only” and being quiet about all the other PUBLIC-ACCESS BEACHES being closed. Dozens of acres of prime real estate.

Here’s the beach in question. Being a native Los Angeleno, I know that the wealthy types hoarding these beachfront communities hate, HATE allowing beach access to the general public. Remember my comment above that the locals are the ones now putting up fake traffic signs to ward away the unwashed masses? Exterminating the public park that you see in this picture is a longstanding priority of the locals, I guarantee it.

One last question… who ARE these descendants of the Bruce Family, anyway? I haven’t seen a name yet.

h ttps://

A report on that plan, made by the County CEO’s office and the Anti-Racism, Diversity and Inclusion Initiative, detailed the complex processes involved in transferring the land, assessing the property’s worth, determining who the legal heirs are, limiting the property tax burden on the family and figuring out what to do with the lifeguard station.

Even the State doesn’t know… or care! “We wuz kangs” now including internecine wars of succession!

Those damn Indian givers in Sacramento! Because of this “reparation” to the Bruce family, blacks are going to LOSE the last bits of public beach access that they currently have.

One thought on “California Passes Indian Giver-Style Black Reparations

  1. Ironically, Manhattan Beach is reputed to be one of the more conservative beach cities in Los Angeles. “More conservative” being a relative term, as in, more conservative than Santa Monica or Venice.

    Manhattan Beach is regarded as rich, snotty and elitist, which is what some people define as conservative. Also, their policies are not as homeless friendly as those in Santa Monica or Venice. But I guess that’s changing.

    The cities on the Palos Verdes peninsula are regarded as the most conservative. Dana Rohrabacher used to represent that area.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s