Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4184
    MEMBERS
  • 80543
    MESSAGES
  • 4
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Will returning land taken by city 100 years ago be enough restitution?   The Serious You: How Current Events Affect You

Started Apr-21 by Showtalk; 177 views.
Showtalk

Poll Question From Showtalk

Apr-21

Will returning land taken by city 100 years ago be enough restitution?
  • Yes, the land should be returned to descendants of the Bruce family1  vote
    10%
  • No, it's not enough; the land should be returned with all lost revenue1  vote
    10%
  • It should not be returned, as current residents and the city will suffer1  vote
    10%
  • No, it should not be returned but restitution should be made1  vote
    10%
  • There is no way to make restitution without harming current residents4  votes
    40%
  • If they do this, other cities will go broke trying to make up for past wrongs2  votes
    20%
  • Other solutions (post below)0  votes
    0%
Yes, the land should be returned to descendants of the Bruce family 
No, it's not enough; the land should be returned with all lost revenue 
It should not be returned, as current residents and the city will suffer 
No, it should not be returned but restitution should be made 
There is no way to make restitution without harming current residents 
If they do this, other cities will go broke trying to make up for past wrongs 
Other solutions (post below) 
In reply toRe: msg 1
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-21

In reply toRe: msg 2
Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-21

This was a serious racist overreach by a city in the 1920s. But is there a good way to make it up to the descendants? The land is now worth millions and it will cost a huge price for taxpayers of that city and county.  It looks like the restitution will go forward, causing loss to the LA County lifeguard program.  I could not find any discussion of this other than the news articles about it. It sounds like there is strong support for making amends.

Meriana

From: Meriana 

Apr-26

I'm not sure the land should be given back at all.  Yes the Bruce family were harassed by white neighbors, and the KKK targeted them also as well as other nearby Black families.   Then the city took their land through Eminent Domain, for public use.  The law of Eminent Domain says that  government may take private property for public use, and the owner must receive just compensation.  

What are they proposing to pay restitution for? Is it for the taking of the land, or for the harassment, etc. that the family was subjected to? If it's for the land, well according to what I've read, when the land was taken, the Bruce's, and the other Black families sued on the grounds of racial prejudice, and while it apparently did take some years, they were eventually awarded $14,500.00 for the land that they had paid $1,225.00 for.  The article this information is from does not say whether or not the family received compensation at the time the land was taken. It would be interesting to have that possibility cleared up since compensation to the property owner is a part of the Eminent Domain law.  I wouldn't be surprised if one investigated all Eminent Domain actions in the country that they would find other instances of it's questionable use. Is that something that should be done with a view to the restoration of the land to all that are questionable?

The other side is the harassment, etc. the family was subjected to, however if restitution is given on that basis, then every family that has suffered harassment, etc.  at some point in the past should also be given restitution. Every race has had people suffer harassment, etc. at some point in history. 

If the city goes ahead with this return of land taken through Eminent Domain, then how many other cities, counties, states will have demands made of them for similar restorations of land?  Should all the land taken from Native tribes be returned to them?  If we really want to be fair about it, shouldn't we start there?

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-08-02/bruces-beach-manhattan-beach
https://www.findlaw.com/realestate/land-use-laws/eminent-domain-public-use-requirement.html

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-26

Those are all good points. The issue I have with restitution is that the people who want compensation and those who will have to pay, were not involved in the original racism. They were not victims or perpetrators.  So families who ancestors were badly abused would get money for people they likely never even met, and people whose tax money and services are going to pay it probably aren’t even related to the original racists.  Technically, the city is not guilty, people are. So any restitution made, should be paid for by families of the culprits, which will never happen. No one even knows today who they were.  There is still some racism today but descendents don’t experience anything like what their ancestors did.  It was much much worse then.

  • Edited April 26, 2021 12:39 pm  by  Showtalk
Meriana

From: Meriana 

Apr-26

I completely agree. It's also a very real possibility that no matter what/how much restitution would be paid, it would never be seen as enough. It could also end up being cases of, they got paid restitution so we should also receive restitution, from the descendants of those who do receive it. Kind of a, we haven't suffered the harms that restitution was given for, but neither did those who received it, so we should also receive it due to our ancestry,  

Showtalk
Host

From: Showtalk 

Apr-26

Which eventually could mean anyone who was ever poor and mistreated going back generations, could qualify.  Every generation some groups are treated poorly. 

TOP