I heard about this the other day and then on another thread eminent domain was brought up and I remembered this article, now the reason eminent domain was used was wrong in this case, but I do believe it does open up a huge amount of legal issues for future use of the eminent domain, even if it is begin used as originally intended.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-beach-seized-black-family-1924-set-returned/story?id=77191841

Anyone with any land on the coast of the southeast Atlantic side better be worried. That's where the 40 acres and a mule phrase came from. Read up on special field order 15.

That's awesome. I'm curious if they allowed it hoping the family can't pay the property taxes of 40 acres of beach front property and would regain the property in the future.

They took it to build a "much needed park" that never was built the City should owe them rent for all of those years a clear abuse of power!

I am sure there are already lawyers and developers lining up to make sure that they get a piece of the pie. If they are smart, they will sell it off in lots.

They better hurry up before they have to give it back to the Indians.

What law dog said

I heard the family was going to go after lost revenue, I’m not sure how they’ll figure it but I’m sure a lawyer will figure it out.

Not exactly true. An accountant will figure out how much. A lawyer will figure out how to go get it.

In this case, though, I think the city will be tripping over themselves to settle.

Jim

Yeah the city would be fools to even attempt to argue any number.

Do not fall for this manufactured woke outrage. In most cases, a landowner is not happy his/her property is taken by eminent domain. I certainly would not be and would seek as much compensation as possible from a jury. Eminent domain is overused by local, state and the federal government and is often for the ultimate benefit of corporations. I have a lot of problems with it.

HOWEVER, the owners had recourse at the time of the taking to be awarded just compensation. While the government may chicken out and pay the descendants more money because it clearly fears manufactured woke outrage, it does not mean the original owners or their descendants were/are entitled to a penny over whatever just compensation was awarded then. Also, figuring out their tax bill will be interesting.

This is yet another step on the road towards reparations. It would have not made the news and, in fact, would have never happened if these were the descendants of some poor white farmer in Texas.

Eminent domain for anything except road right of ways is theft. Who gets to decide what the compensation will be?

Sure seems like that property was stollen to keep black people off the beach.

Maybe it was taken for that reason--and you are probably right. That does not mean we upend society to answer to the woke mob. Decisions like this have broader consequences.

As for who decides, commissioners (typically appraisers) propose an award and then the land owner can try his/her case to a jury (at least in Oklahoma) if he/she thinks the commissioner's award was too low.

Their are two steps to an eminent domain proceeding: the government's necessity (must be for a legitimate public purpose), and the fair market value of the property taken.

Here, the public necessity stage appears to have been motivated by the improper purpose of keeping black folks off the beach.

The article omits some important facts. Did the original black owners contest the taking? What were they previously awarded for the taking? Fair market value? Why didn't the original owners pursue their legal remedies (if there were any) at the time?

It doesn't bother me to right an old wrong. But it appears it's being done for political, not legal reasons.

Jim