LOS ANGELES - Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that will help clear the way for Los Angeles County to return a piece of Manhattan Beach coastline to the descendants of a Black family who had the land stripped away by the city nearly a century ago.
"As governor of California, let me do what apparently Manhattan Beach is unwilling to do, and I want to apologize to the Bruce family for the injustice that was done to them a century ago,'' Newsom said to a large crowd gathered for the signing ceremony. "I say that as a proud Californian, but also mindful that we always haven't had a proud past,'' he said.
The public seizure of the Bruce's Beach property has long stained the history of Manhattan Beach, particularly in the past year amid a nationwide reckoning on racial injustice.
Willa and Charles Bruce purchased land in 1912 for $1,225. They eventually added some other parcels and created a beach resort catering to Black residents, who had few options at the time for enjoying the California coast.
Complete with a bath house, dance hall and cafe, the resort attracted other Black families who purchased adjacent land and created what they hoped would be an oceanfront retreat.
But the resort quickly became a target of the area's white populace, leading to acts of vandalism, attacks on vehicles of Black visitors and even a 1920 attack by the Ku Klux Klan.
- California moves to return Bruce’s Beach to descendants of Black couple
- Legislation introduced that would allow Bruce's Beach to be returned to descendants of Black family
- Bill to return Bruce's Beach to owners' descendants OK'd by state senate
- LA County supervisors vote to return Bruce's Beach to owners' descendants
The Bruces were undeterred and continued operating their small enclave, but under increasing pressure, the city moved to condemn their property and other surrounding parcels in 1924, seizing it through eminent domain under the pretense of planning to build a city park.
The resort was forced out of business, and the Bruces and other Black families ultimately lost their land in 1929.
The families sued, claiming they were the victims of a racially motivated removal campaign. The Bruces were eventually awarded some damages, as were other displaced families. But the Bruces were unable to reopen their resort anywhere else in town.
Despite the city claiming the land was needed for a city park, the property sat vacant for decades. It was not until 1960 that a park was built on a portion of the seized land, with city officials fearing the evicted families could take new legal action if the property wasn't used for the purpose for which it was seized.
The exact parcel of land the Bruces owned was transferred to the state, and then to the county in 1995.
The city park that now sits on a portion of the land seized by the city has borne a variety of names over the years. But it was not until 2006 that the city agreed to rename the park "Bruce's Beach" in honor of the evicted family. That honor, however, has been derided by critics as a hollow gesture toward the family.
While the state legislation is required to make the transfer to the family, more action on a local level will still be required. The county in July approved a roadmap for carrying out the move. In part, it calls for the county Treasurer and Tax Collector Department to work with the County Public Administrator's Office to determine the Bruces' legal heirs.
The county will also have to negotiate an agreement for the land transfer, one that eases the property tax burden on the descendants when they take possession. The county will also have to find land to relocate a lifeguard facility at the site.
The county CEO's Office and Anti-Racism, Diversity and Inclusion Initiative is expected to report back to the Board of Supervisors this fall with further details, after evaluating the impacts of the property transfer. The plan did not provide a date by which the land would need to formally be transferred.
Tune in to FOX 11 Los Angeles for the latest Southern California news.