Removing racism from real estate records runs into opposition

If it was up to his home's original builder, Hector de la Torre could never have lived in the nearly 60-year-old house in South Gate. Neither could any other Mexican American. It says so in the deed:

"No lot in said tract shall at any time be lived upon by a person whose blood is not entirely that of the Caucasian race, and for the purpose of this paragraph, no Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, Hindu, or any person of the Ethiopian, Indian, or Mongolian races shall be deemed to be Caucasian."

Such racist restrictive covenants are now illegal and unenforceable. But De la Torre, a state assemblyman representing the 50th District,  wants to go a step farther. He has sponsored legislation (AB 2204)  that would require county recorders to delete such covenants from the deeds any time a property is sold.

But, as KPCC reports, this well-intentioned bill has met with opposition from the state's real estate and insurance industry. They fear the proposal will delay and increase the cost of completing deals. Some county officials are also concerned that the bill would require them to search all related property records when a sale comes up to find and delete discriminatory language.

Existing law already allows individual property owners to strike restrictive covenants from their deeds. But few ever bother to do so. 

-- Jesus Sanchez

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Angeleno]

When you think about the (inherited) wealth that has been passed down through family generations, much of it consisting of, or was derived through the ownership of real estate, it kind of makes you wonder how many more families of color might not have fared better if these covenants were not put into place.

Also, the fact that much of the land in Southern California in the 1800's that was initially owned BY people of color, was illegally taken from them by government legislation, shady East Coast lawyers, and gun-toting squatters that local courts defended, it's no wonder why the sentiment among people of color is that racism is inherent among Anglos and why there is so much anger and resentment among "minorities."

I say leave the language in there to serve as a reminder of the brazen mindset of White America.

[A Caucasian Angeleno]

Of course these should not be deleted from deeds. In addition to being legal documents, deeds are also historical documents. Does changing the document mean the nasty history of racial discrimination in housing didn't happen? Does it do anything other than remove potentially valuable primary documentation from the reach of future historians?

[syscom3]

Leave it in. Just so there's proof such restrictions did exist so long ago.

[Chris]

"it kind of makes you wonder how many more families of color might not have fared better if these covenants were not put into place."

Doesn't it also make you wonder how these families of color would have been faring at this moment had they not picked up and bailed on their countries of origin? It's not like we've ever had to invite immigrants here.

[Reynaldo]

These documents are a horrific testament of racism in our country and the deprivation rendered upon minority citizens. The 1948 law that bars the implementation of these restrictive convenants is law, and can be used anytime when necessary. It would be a good thing to have the odious discriminatory language removed. Although, I doubt it would be cost effective for example to hire 27 lawyers in Los Angeles County and spend $7 million a year to handle eradicating the offensive language. These statistics are noted in the bill's status link site.
As much as I am disgusted, that my Chicano parents had to endure such discriminatory practices, the money possibly spent on this bill could be used for the educaional system.