In the News | A Dearing memorial isn’t enough, writes Bruce’s Beach attorney in SF Chronicle

Sidney and Irene Dearing, ca. 1921 (Photo contributed by Roberta Price, Sidney's sister Elizabeth Dearing Hall's granddaughter).

George Fatheree represented the Bruce family in a landmark 2022 case that restored Bruce’s Beach property back to the family. The City of Manhattan Beach in 1924 had used eminent domain to seize Bruce’s Beach and the property of other Black families under the pretense of building a city park.

Fatheree argues in an April 27 guest opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle that Piedmont needs to go beyond a memorial and consider a real act of reparation for what the Dearing family lost when Sidney and Irene Dearing were driven from their Piedmont home in 1924.

Piedmont now faces a choice. The city is committed to erecting a memorial, budgeting nearly $500,000 to build a sculpture in a local park. But a memorial cannot compensate for a century of lost equity. Since the harm was economic, the remedy must be as well. Governments have tools to settle these debts, like returning property, providing compensation and/or creating a reparative fund.

Piedmont should do more than memorialize the Black homeowners it violently forced out, April 27, 2026

Full opinion HERE

One thought on “In the News | A Dearing memorial isn’t enough, writes Bruce’s Beach attorney in SF Chronicle

Leave a Reply

The Exedra comments section is an essential part of the site. The goal of our comments policy is to help ensure it is a vibrant yet civil space. To participate, we ask that Exedra commenters please provide a first and last name. Please note that comments expressing congratulations or condolences may be published without full names. (View our full Comments Policy.)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *