1 David Yakobson
From: Edith Karmes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 8, 2025 5:50 PM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT, ITEM 5.a., 9/9/2025 City Council Meeting
EXTERNAL
September 9 City Council Meeting
Item 5.a. - Public Comment
Claims involving eminent domain involving
1811 Ocean Boulevard
The City’s research shows:
On May 15, 1957, a group of investors called Silas White & Associates signed a lease-topurchase agreement for land at 1811 Ocean Ave., which was owned by a white man named Bennett Dorsey. White formed Ebony Beach Club as a nonprofit corporation in 1958 and began soliciting memberships for the planned private club.
The agreement to purchase the Ebony Beach Club site was for $200,000, which White would pay as a lease in monthly installments of $2,700 per month for 15 years, with a second 15-year extension option. The City Attorney’s Office found court records showing that White completed one rental payment of $2,700 on behalf of the Ebony Beach Club, Inc. before the site and surrounding properties were seized through eminent domain.
It's the city’s understanding that White, through Silas White & Associates and his nonprofit Ebony Beach Club Inc., entered into the lease-to-purchase agreement with the intention of ultimately owning the property, but didn’t have the capital or capability to buy it outright at the time. This was common for entrepreneurs of color at that time, as they didn’t have access to business loans or other sources of capital.
On Aug. 29, 1958, the city filed a complaint for condemnation — more commonly known as eminent domain — to seize five parcels of land that included the Ebony Beach Club site and several surrounding parcels. The complaint named the owner of the Ebony Beach Club property as Bennett Dorsey, and the Dicksons, a family that had loaned Dorsey money to make improvements to the property.
On Oct. 15, 1959, the court awarded $74,000 to Dorsey and the Dicksons, and issued a final judgment stating that Ebony Beach Club, Inc., had no right, title, interest or estate in the property.
Item 5-A
September 9, 2025
Item 5-A
September 9, 2025
2 Today, the Ebony Beach Club property makes up about five percent of the land where the Viceroy Hotel sits, and mostly comprises Vicente Terrace, a public street adjacent to the hotel.
In August 2024, the city provided the family’s legal representatives with the findings of the investigation and supporting documentation, also giving an opportunity for the family to address any missing or incorrect information. At the last meeting between the city and the White family, the family presented an estimated value of economic loss at $125,000. The city requested additional documentation on this claim and is waiting for a response.
The City should deny claims based on this history for many reasons:
1. The claims accrued more than 65 years ago. They are obviously barred by applicable statutes of limitation.
2. The property was owned by a white man. The possibility that it would be acquired by African Americans was speculative. There is no compelling evidence of racial animus directed at the White family. The owner had a reasonable opportunity to oppose the condemnation and contest the value of the compensation he was paid in court at the time the eminent proceedings were pending. The Silas White buyers had the opportunity to intervene in the eminent domain proceedings and/or to file a complaint against the City for racial discrimination at the time the property was condemned. There is no justification or excuse for delaying more than 65 years, now that the witnesses and much of the relevant evidence is unavailable, to pursue any claim against the City.
3. The City condemned many lots in the same time period to build the Civic Center. What the nature of the City’s motivations were is not knowable with much confidence because the witnesses whose motivations are material are long dead.
4. Most if not all competent lawyers will say that a claim could be summarily defeated in little time and for little expense by demurrer, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or a motion for summary judgment.
5. There are other alleged victims whose property was taken by eminent domain who can allege and possibly prove racial discrimination. Settling with the vocal members of the White family will simply motivate other putative victims to file similar claims. It should be noted that everyone whose property was taken through eminent domain was paid “reasonable compensation” for the property as determined by a court. There is no allegation that the trial courts and appellate courts were not impartial.
6. The City is in a fiscal crisis. Discretionary expenditures must be kept to a minimum. The City Council are fiduciaries for the electorate’s funds.
7. Members of the City Council, in particular Caroline Torosis, have been publicly claiming the White family were victims of racial discrimination which the City owed them compensation for, Item 5-A
September 9, 2025
Item 5-A
September 9, 2025
3 long before the facts were known, displaying the very kind of prejudice that they complain of. (Ms. Torosis is oftentimes more concerned about herself and her public image than the wellbeing of City residents, as when she through a hissy fit last year when widespread opposition arose to sending her and others on a junket to Vienna, Austria to study socialist housing practices in a foreign country with different laws 6,000+ miles away.) The City Council should cast aside such prejudice and not pay or compromise claims with taxpayer funds for which the courts were open 65 years ago to adjudicate and which courts today would certainly dismiss as time-barred and if not time barred because the White family cannot produce evidence to satisfy their burden of proof.
8. Priorities. There is not a groundswell of widespread public opinion to spend funds to pay the White family and divert them from hiring more police, rejuvenating the Promenade, public safety, the parks (including the Airport park which the public wants and the City states it cannot afford) reducing homelessness in public spaces, or other projects that the Santa Monica public believes is of far greater importance.
8. Finally, paying a claim that is totally without merit (because it is barred by statutes of limitation) because it is a claim of racial discrimination by a Black family, is itself an instance of racial discrimination (the same kind as universities giving preference to students because of their race, which the Supreme Court has declared unlawful). This invites civil rights litigation against the City which at a minimum will cost the City a lot to defend.
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
Item 5-A
September 9, 2025
Item 5-A
September 9, 2025