City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 29, 2025
Agenda Item: 11.B
1 of 7
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oliver Chi, City Manager, City Manager's Office
Subject: Ebony Beach Club
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review the materials provided by the City Attorney’s Office and provide direction to staff on next steps with the heirs of Silas White and the Ebony Beach Club nonprofit.
Summary
On March 19, 2024, the City Council directed staff to research the history and provide information on claims brought forward to the City regarding the seizure of property around the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium that was intended to be used as the Ebony Beach Club, which, today consists of approximately 6% of the total square footage of the Viceroy leasehold and does not include the Viceroy hotel building. The Ebony Beach Club was a Black-led nonprofit social club founded by entrepreneur Silas White with the goal of providing a welcoming community space for Black members at a time when the beach and many other areas remained segregated. Though Mr. White had entered into a lease-to-own agreement and made initial investments toward opening the club, the property was condemned as part of a larger civic development plan, and the club never opened.
This case reflects a broader pattern of redevelopment in Santa Monica that disproportionately displaced communities of color, as documented in the Belmar Triangle. While legal at the time, such actions are now examined through the lens of restorative justice. The City is committed to fully examining the facts and factors 2 of 7
surrounding the seizure of this land and, therefore, staff now seeks Council direction on the matter. Staff recommends that the City offer to enter into mediation with a mediator of the White family’s choosing and to cover the costs up to $15,000 with the goal of better understanding all perspectives and identifying appropriate means of restitution.
Discussion
Silas C. White was a prominent Black entrepreneur who owned a few businesses and some property in Santa Monica and the surrounding area. In the late 1950s, he embarked on his vision to create the Ebony Beach Club, the first beach club to welcome Black families in Santa Monica. On March 19, 2024, Silas White’s family spoke before the Santa Monica City Council claiming that the site where the proposed Ebony Beach Club was to be located ― the area used primarily as an access road near where the Viceroy Hotel now sits ― was taken by the city in the late 1950s in a racially motivated eminent domain action.
In bringing the case forward, the family is seeking the return of land or financial compensation, comparing their situation to the Bruce’s Beach case in Manhattan Beach. In response to the claims from the White family, the City Council asked the City Manager and City Attorney, in consultation with relevant departments, to report back with:
1. Historical records documenting Silas White’s interest in the Ebony Beach Club Property at 1811 Ocean Avenue including chain of title and a record of any lease-to-purchase agreements that may exist, as well as the record of actions taken by the City of Santa Monica to seize this property by eminent domain.
2. Contemporaneous public writings, government communications, court documents, and other evidence that indicates the City of Santa Monica exercised racial animus in its decision to seize the property at 1811 Ocean Avenue.
3. Recommendations that include, at a minimum, steps the City of Santa Monica should take to repair past harm that the City perpetuated against Silas White and his descendants related to the Ebony Beach Club property at 1811 Ocean Avenue.
3 of 7
In response to Council direction, staff undertook a thorough review of the Ebony Beach Club case, assembling legal documents, court records, and contemporaneous media coverage. All of the materials uncovered through this process are publicly available at santamonica.gov/equity. In August 2024, those findings were shared with representatives of the White family, who responded with an initial estimate of $125,000 in economic loss in 1959 as a base line to determine present-day value of that lost opportunity. The City asked for supporting documentation on December 19, 2024, and is awaiting additional information.
This case is not simply about a parcel of land; it brings into focus a pattern of redevelopment decisions that disproportionately harmed communities of color in Santa Monica. The Ebony Beach Club was not an isolated case. The use of eminent domain in Santa Monica has been shown to disproportionately impact Black and Brown residents, businesses, and neighborhoods. The City’s own Statement of Apology, posted publicly in 2021, acknowledges that civic planning decisions dating back to the 1920s often resulted in the displacement of communities of color—frequently under the guise of urban renewal or public benefit.
The Ebony Beach Club story fits squarely within this broader historical pattern. As documented by historian Dr. Alison Rose Jefferson and others, cities across the country—including Santa Monica—routinely used condemnation to interrupt Black social and economic advancement. Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law describes how such legal tools, while facially neutral, were deployed with racially targeted effects, often in service of furthering segregation.
These harms, once deemed legal and even routine, now call for serious examination through the lens of restorative justice. The question before Council is not only whether harm occurred, but how we choose to respond given what we now know.
Summary of Ebony Beach Club History
4 of 7
In 1957, Silas White & Associates signed a lease-to-purchase agreement for the property at 1811 Ocean Avenue, then owned by Bennett Dorsey. The agreed purchase price was $200,000, to be paid in monthly installments of $2,700 over 15 years.
The first page of the Agreement acknowledged Seller’s receipt of $8,250 from the Buyer but does not specify what portion of that was paid by Mr. White or by his associates.
Nor are there any records or claims made by Silas White or the Ebony Beach Club that any other purchase payments were made. Presumably, lacking access to traditional capital—common for Black entrepreneurs of the era—White formed a nonprofit, Ebony Beach Club Inc., to manage the project and begin building a membership base.
Investments were made in property improvements, advertisements were published, and more than 400 prospective members expressed interest in joining.
But in August 1958, the City filed a complaint for condemnation to acquire five parcels of land—including the site of the planned club—under the authority of eminent domain.
In 1959, a court awarded $74,000 to Dorsey and the Dickson family (who had loaned Dorsey money) and concluded that Ebony Beach Club Inc. had no right, title, or interest in the land. The club never opened and there is no record of whether any funds were shared by the landowners with Mr. White or the Ebony Beach Club, Inc..
Additional factors also complicate analysis of if and how best to provide restitution in this matter. Silas White and his investors were in a lease-to-own agreement rather than holding title outright, and they transferred any interest they had to a nonprofit corporation led by Mr. White, who died in 1962. Because the property was condemned, any chance the Ebony Beach Club Inc. had to purchase the property was prematurely foreclosed. The Ebony Beach Club Inc.’s nonprofit corporation status was inactivated on April 3, 1972. These details raise important questions about how compensation, ownership, and lost opportunities should be understood in hindsight, given the discrimination Blacks encountered in the financial market at that time. Indeed, how does one measure the loss to the Black community and to Santa Monica, of having the first Black-owned beach club in the country?
5 of 7
From a legal standpoint, this was a straightforward property dispute. Those involved in making the decision were barred from considering anything beyond the fair market value of the real estate—no matter the investments made, the benefit to the community, or the racial dynamics that may have informed the City's planning decisions. The legal record makes clear that questions of necessity, bad faith, or racial discrimination were, by law, explicitly excluded from judicial review at that time. However, much like redlining and segregation, the law does not always correlate with justice and the use of eminent domain in the past frequently correlated with the removal of a community that was perceived as less desirable to the majority population.
Because of the complexity of this situation, staff recommends the City extend an offer to enter into mediation with the White family. Engaging in formal mediation with the White family, facilitated by a credentialed mediator of their choice with costs covered by the City, would allow both parties to explore facts, intentions, and potential resolutions in a structured, good-faith process. Alternatively, Council may also decide, given the current facts, to take no further action at this time unless additional information is made available.
Beyond Ebony Beach: The Need for a Broader Framework
As with all restorative processes, this situation raises complex questions: What constitutes harm? Who has standing to seek repair? What forms of compensation are just—not just legally, but morally? While there are no easy answers, there is a growing recognition that repair is not a one-time transaction but an ongoing commitment to truth, equity, and transformation. While no action can undo the loss of the Ebony Beach Club, these recommendations represent a chance to affirm the City’s commitment to equity by addressing a specific injustice with care and accountability. In doing so, Council can help shape a future where our community is no longer stained by the legacy of exclusion.
While the White Family came forward to advocate for their family’s legacy specifically and should be heard and addressed directly, it is important to acknowledge that this is likely not the only case where a resident, family, or community organization experienced 6 of 7
lasting harm through eminent domain. The erasure of the Belmar Triangle and other redevelopment actions suggest a wider legacy of displacement. As such, there is a growing need for a Citywide framework—one that includes benchmarks for analysis, clear criteria for eligibility, and a transparent process for review.
Such a framework would help ensure that Santa Monica’s approach to repair is not only consistent but grounded in the lived experiences of those impacted. It would also signal to the broader community that we are willing to do the work—not just to acknowledge past harms, but to meaningfully address them.
This case, alongside others like it has helped inform the City’s broader reparative justice work, including the creation of the Landback & Reparations Task Force, which began its work in April 2025 and is dedicated to addressing the historical and ongoing harms faced by communities who have experienced systemic loss of land, housing, and opportunity in Santa Monica. Supported by the City's Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Team, this Task Force offers a unique opportunity to take an active role in historical research, truth-telling, and community engagement, resulting in the development of a Harms Report, and culminating in actionable recommendations for reparative justice to include a reparations program to be adopted by City Council.
Environmental Review
The recommended Council actions in this report are not a “project” subject to CEQA.
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21065, the recommendations do not meet the definition of a “project” subject to CEQA as it will not “cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” Additionally, per Section 15378(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “project” does not include organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, the recommendation is not subject to CEQA.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
7 of 7
If Council approves staff recommendation, there is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary, Staff will utilize no more than $15,000 of available General Fund budget for the cost to engage a mediator. Staff will return to Council if specific financial actions are required in the future.
Prepared By: Lisa Parson, Equity and Inclusion Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Written Comment
B. Powerpoint Presentation