The Legacy of Bruce's Beach: Rectifying an Injustice

 The Legacy of Bruce's Beach: Rectifying an Injustice

In the early 20th century, against the backdrop of the Great Migration, Willa Bruce and her husband, Charles, embarked on a journey to California, like many African Americans at the time, in pursuit of the California and American Dream. In 1912 and 1920, they acquired two plots of land along the Strand in Manhattan Beach, which they transformed into a haven known as Bruce's Lodge or colloquially as "Bruce's Beach." This seaside resort warmly welcomed Black beachgoers from Los Angeles and beyond, becoming a symbol of hope and community.

Sadly, as Bruce's Beach gained popularity among Black beachgoers, it also ignited hostility and racism from white residents in the predominantly white surrounding community. This unfortunate response did not deter other Black families from purchasing nearby land plots, as they too sought solace and established the beginnings of a diverse community in Manhattan Beach.

In 1924, under the pressure of a petition led by local white real estate agents and citizens, the Manhattan Beach City Council voted to seize the Bruce's resort site and surrounding land through eminent domain, with the intention of constructing a park. However, historical records and evidence clearly indicate that the true motivation behind this eminent domain process was rooted in racial discrimination. The aim was to dismantle the thriving Black business and discourage other African Americans from settling or establishing businesses in Manhattan Beach. Additionally, the City passed ordinances and implemented parking restrictions specifically targeting African Americans, preventing them from visiting the shoreline area of Bruce's Beach.

Simultaneously, the City enacted laws prohibiting resort-type businesses in the area, effectively thwarting the Bruce family and other Black families from acquiring additional beachfront property for their resorts. In 1929, the court upheld the City of Manhattan Beach's claim to the property through eminent domain and finalized the financial settlement for the land.

Devastated by these events, the Bruce family left Manhattan Beach in 1927. The City promptly demolished the Bruce's Beach resort, long before the land dispute was finally settled in 1929. Unfortunately, no park was constructed, leaving the land empty and stagnant for decades. It was only in 1956, almost 30 years later, that the City of Manhattan Beach eventually built a park on the land behind the former Bruce's Beach resort and other shoreline properties.

Over time, the park underwent various name changes. In 2007, Mitch Ward, Manhattan Beach's first Black councilmember and mayor, alongside local citizens, spearheaded an effort to rename the park Bruce's Beach in recognition of its historical significance and as a tribute to the Bruce family.

In 1995, through a series of land transfers involving the City of Manhattan Beach, the State of California, and the County of Los Angeles, the County acquired the land that had originally belonged to Charles and Willa Bruce. This presents an opportunity for the County to rectify the historic injustice inflicted upon the Bruce family by returning ownership of the land to its rightful heirs—the descendants of Charles and Willa Bruce. The land should never have been taken from them in an act driven by racism and a desire to suppress a thriving Black business and its patrons.

Today, the site where Bruce's resort once stood is occupied by the Los Angeles County Lifeguard Administration Building. On either side, rows of private residences stretch along the shoreline.

By returning the land unjustly taken from the Bruce family, we can take the first step toward righting this historic wrong. This act of justice will provide the descendants of Charles and Willa Bruce with an opportunity to partake in the California and American Dream that their great-grandparents aspired to a century ago.

The fraudulent appropriation of land, particularly on the basis of race, is contrary to the public interest. It denies individuals and communities