July 20, 2019

No Image

ProPublica Report: Black Americans Lose Big Under Longtime Property Provision

NPR’s Sarah McCammon speaks to ProPublica reporter Lizzie Presser about heirs property, a form of land ownership that has cost black Americans billions of dollars in land loss.



SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST:

The issue of reparations is back in the news. Democratic presidential hopefuls are talking about it. Senator Cory Booker and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee proposed legislation this year that would create a commission to study reparations. And this week, Senator Chuck Schumer said he’d support that bill. Proponents of the concept argue that reparations are not just about slavery but also injustices black Americans have endured since the Jim Crow era and beyond. One of those injustices includes the losses of enormous amounts of property to a form of land ownership called heirs property, which some economists say has cost black Americans hundreds of billions of dollars in lost land over the past century.

Joining us now to talk about this is reporter Lizzie Presser, who investigated heirs property in a collaboration between ProPublica and The New Yorker. She followed the case of Melvin Davis and Licurtis Reels, who spent eight years in jail fighting for the land they call home. And she joins us now from our New York bureau. Hi, Lizzie. Welcome.

LIZZIE PRESSER: Hi, Sarah. Thanks for having me.

MCCAMMON: One of the people you spoke to in your reporting called heirs property the worst problem you never heard of. Can you tell us more about what it is?

PRESSER: So heirs property is a form of ownership. And essentially what happens is that someone dies without a will, and their descendants inherit an interest in the land. So instead of owning a physical piece of it, they’re owning a share, kind of like holding stock in a company. And as that land is passed down through generations, that can mean that dozens or hundreds of family members co-own a piece of land. And it creates a very unstable form of ownership.

MCCAMMON: And why is it structured that way?

PRESSER: Intestate succession is what it’s called legally, and essentially that’s just what will happen if you die without a will. And so families often believed, actually, that if they owned land in this way, they were protecting it from being taken from them. But in reality, it made their ownership very vulnerable to takings.

MCCAMMON: In the heart of your investigation is the case of the Reels family, two brothers – Licurtis Reels and Melvin Davis in Carteret County, N.C. Tell us a little bit about how their story starts and then how it starts to unravel.

PRESSER: So Melvin and Licurtis’s great-grandfather bought 65 acres in 1911. And in 1970, their grandfather Mitchell Reels died without a will. What ended up happening was a distant uncle who hadn’t lived on the property in two decades used an arcane law called the Torrens law to carve out the most valuable slice of the property right on the river. And this is a family of shrimpers and crabbers and fishers. And so that’s – that wasn’t just the most valuable property in terms of its value to sell, it was also the way in which these men made their money and fed their community. Once he was able to take that land, he very quickly sold it off to developers. And that’s really when the trouble started for the Reels family.

MCCAMMON: And so the two brothers get their day in court in 2011. What happens next?

PRESSER: The brothers had been occupying the waterfront. They didn’t really understand that their uncle had taken it. And, in fact, they lived with the belief that the land was theirs, and they weren’t going to let go. So even when there were court orders that required the brothers to remove their homes, they refused. In 2011, they went to court thinking that they were just going to argue their case again. But the judge found them guilty of civil contempt, and he ordered them sent to jail.

MCCAMMON: You document multiple ways, both judicial and extrajudicial, in which black Americans have had property taken from them. I want to turn to another legal mechanism you describe that really seems to allow developers to take advantage of heirs property landowners. It’s called partition action. Can you explain that?

PRESSER: So in a partition action, any single heir to the property or a speculator who buys the interest of a single heir can go to the court and ask for a sale of the entire property. So imagine if you have 15 relatives, and one person says, I want to sell. And then they get to go to the court and say, I want to sell, and the court says, sure, you can. And everyone then is dispossessed. This is what was happening and continues to happen across the South. But in many cases, what you see are speculators, companies, developers who buy off interests of individual heirs and then bring it to the court.

MCCAMMON: And if I could just ask one last sort of bigger-picture question – as you hear candidates in the 2020 campaign talking about issues of racial justice and reparations, do you think this issue of heirs property, though it’s less understood, do you think it helps to make that case?

PRESSER: Absolutely. I think what I was hoping to convey with this piece is that black families had very good reason to be suspicious of white southern courts under Jim Crow. And as a result, we have seen this unstable form of land ownership take hold across the South. And it’s a very significant example of how racial discrimination and segregation has fueled a legal system that is stacked against African American landowners.

MCCAMMON: That’s ProPublica Lizzie Presser. Lizzie, thanks so much for joining us.

PRESSER: Thanks for having me.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Former Planned Parenthood CEO On Leadership Upheaval

NPR’s Sarah McCammon talks to Pamela Maraldo, former CEO of Planned Parenthood. She left the organization under similar circumstances as Dr. Leana Wen, who was ousted from her position this week.



SARAH MCCAMMON, HOST:

In July of 1995, the opening paragraph of a New York Times article read, quote, “at a time when both abortion rights and federal financing of family planning are under attack in Congress, Planned Parenthood, which has long led the fight for both, is in upheaval.” That story marked the departure of Planned Parenthood’s leader at the time, a woman with a medical background whose philosophy ran afoul of the organization then.

If that sounds familiar, it may be because this week, Planned Parenthood announced the departure of its most recent president, Dr. Leana Wen. Wen has said she was forced out over philosophical differences with the organization, including her desire to expand Planned Parenthood’s focus to a broader array of health issues. Almost exactly 24 years ago, Pamela Maraldo resigned over her own differences with Planned Parenthood. She has a Ph.D. in nursing, and she’s now CEO of the nonprofit group Girls Inc. Of New York City. Maraldo joins us now from our New York bureau.

Hello.

PAMELA MARALDO: Hello.

MCCAMMON: Now, the New York Times report that described your resignation in 1995 said that sources at the time said you had aroused opposition with your, quote, “emphasis on reshaping Planned Parenthood into a broad health organization that could compete in the era of managed care” – a focus that some of the group’s affiliates felt would inevitably diminish their role as advocates for abortion rights and low-income women’s access to health care.

Now, this week, in a letter explaining her ouster from Planned Parenthood, Dr. Leana Wen said she had come to the organization to work on a broad range of health care issues but that, quote, “the new board leadership has determined that the priority of Planned Parenthood moving forward is to double down on abortion rights advocacy.” She’s also said in an op-ed for The New York Times that she wanted to depoliticize abortion but that her approach seemed at odds with the direction the board wanted to go. What does this say about the trajectory of not just Planned Parenthood but also the abortion rights movement?

MARALDO: Certainly everybody would agree that reproductive rights are hanging the balance right now. It’s a tough time, and there are two schools of thought. I think that the leadership at Planned Parenthood has to do what it thinks is right. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong. For my part, I would do what I did, you know, last time around.

I think that when you look at the number of young people and poor women in the country that don’t have adequate health care, and you look at not the polarity in the debate but what women need on a day-to-day basis, it’s really rare that poor women have just one problem. It’s always accompanied by depression or hypertension or diabetes. So a public health physician who is a commissioner of health like Dr. Wen is going to see the world through that lens. I mean, she took an oath to do that. And similarly for a nurse, someone like me, you see the world in terms of health care delivery.

I think there is an argument to be made that the president of Planned Parenthood has to be strong in the advocacy arena right now when the media is so ever-present in all of our social issues – and certainly abortion’s at the top of that list. I think you have to be a strong advocate for reproductive rights, there’s no question about it – reproductive control and privacy, as Justice Ginsburg recently said. So we have to speak up and make sure that line in the sand is maintained, especially now with the Supreme Court having the constitution it has.

On the other hand, you could argue that, strategically, moving in the direction of broader health care will mitigate against, will, you know, help fight that fight in a much more integrated way, in a way that’s much more – that the American people would be receptive to.

MCCAMMON: And you talk about these two schools of thought, about how political to be versus how focused on health care, at least in terms of messaging. Is that a split that’s always been there within Planned Parenthood? Or is it just an old issue that was kind of dormant and has resurfaced, do you think?

MARALDO: I would say that your quote in the beginning was accurate. It’s resurfaced because I think they hired a physician. But it’s always dormant. And the fact is, their instincts were right, I believe, to hire a physician, a public health physician, because at the end of the day, if it weren’t a health care delivery network, they would be NARAL. And there is a great deal of credibility because Planned Parenthood does deliver other health services and an array of health services like, you know, prenatal care and pap tests and breast cancer screening and immunizations. Planned Parenthood has always provided a wide array of health care services. And so they can’t be de-emphasized It’s got to be based on women’s health and what they need.

MCCAMMON: You reference NARAL, of course, which is an abortion rights advocacy organization.

MARALDO: Right.

MCCAMMON: How do you think the mission of Planned Parenthood is and should be different from a group like NARAL and some of the others that do similar work?

MARALDO: I think that’s the point. Planned Parenthood delivers a wide array of services. And I think that – not that they don’t want to be good, strong voices and advocates for reproductive rights. I think, though, that there’s got to be a parallel concern about the health care of women in general and the services they deliver. So I had women come up to me and say, you’re so concerned about whether I’m going to have another baby or not. Why don’t you be more concerned about my prenatal care or the adequate, you know, nutrition? And I say, as a matter of fact, I am, and we are.

MCCAMMON: Dr. Wen’s departure after less than a year at Planned Parenthood came in a week when the Trump administration said it would start enforcing federal family planning rules that in effect cut a substantial amount of funding to Planned Parenthood.

MARALDO: Right.

MCCAMMON: You know, given that kind of landscape, how much of a role should the organization play, though, in lobbying against these kinds of policies that directly affect their health care mission?

MARALDO: Well, that’s what’s tricky. And that, they really do have to speak up now. Those voices need to be heard. They need a strong, vocal leader in support of reproductive rights, in support of family planning funds, in support of Medicaid funding for abortion. You know, poor women have, you know, two, three times the number of abortions, and they’re not provided for. So I think right now, times are critical, and we do need a strong voice of Planned Parenthood.

I’m not sure that Dr. Wen couldn’t have been that. I’m sure she understood that there – I don’t know this for a fact, but I can’t imagine that she was hired and knew the organization and didn’t understand that there was a strong role for – to speak up in the – in advocacy forums all over the country.

MCCAMMON: At the time when you were serving as CEO of Planned Parenthood in the early Clinton years, many Democrats were aligned with President Clinton, who famously said, abortion should be safe, legal and rare. As these issues continue to be debated in the public sphere, would you like to see a return by Planned Parenthood and other advocates to that kind of framing of this issue?

MARALDO: Yes, Sarah, I would – and reason being that I think with any medical procedure, any surgical procedure, the watchword should be prevention. I think the best practice is to try and prevent the thing in the first place. So I agree. I think that people that are pro-choice are afraid of stigmatizing abortion when they say it should be rare. And that’s not where I’m coming from. I’m coming from a place that too many trips to the doctor’s, medical procedures, surgical procedures, could be and should be prevented.

MCCAMMON: That was Pamela Maraldo, CEO of Girls Inc. of New York City. She was also a former president of Planned Parenthood back in the early 1990s.

Thank you so much.

MARALDO: Thank you, too, Sarah.

MCCAMMON: And we invited Planned Parenthood’s interim president, Alexis McGill Johnson, to appear on this program. We’re told she’s not available this weekend, but we are hoping to talk with her in the coming days.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Sports Roundup: Previewing Sunday’s Baseball Hall Of Fame Induction

NPR’s Scott Simon speaks with ESPN’s Howard Bryant about the 2019 baseball season so far and about Mariano Rivera, baseball’s first unanimous Hall of Famer.



SCOTT SIMON, HOST:

Now, time for sports.

(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)

SIMON: The 2019 baseball season heats up the summer – the first unanimous Hall of Famer – joined now by Howard Bryant of ESPN, who gets a vote in the Hall of Fame ballot. Howard, thanks so much for being with us.

HOWARD BRYANT: Good morning, Scott. How are you?

SIMON: I’m fine, thank you, sir. I saw two games at Wrigley Field this week. I’m great.

BRYANT: (Laughter).

SIMON: Three teams, now with more than 60 wins in Major League Baseball – the Yanks in the AL East, the Dodgers in the NL West, the Astros in the AL West – they’re scorching, aren’t they?

BRYANT: Yeah, they are. And once again, this is my second-favorite time of the year where you come out of the All-Star break and you start looking at teams and wondering, OK, who’s built for the entire season, and who’s going to wilt as the dog days of August commence?

And I kind of feel like these three teams are great. They’re really, really good. I mean, I – you look at the Dodgers. They’re an incredibly hungry team. They went to the World Series back-to-back years. They got beat twice. The Astros got them in 2017. The Red Sox got them last year.

You look at the Astros, who, of course, won the World Series two years ago and then, of course, the Yankees, who have been building and building for this for the last couple years. They sort of surprised everyone a couple years ago. The Red Sox got them last year. And now they are just an amazing offensive team, and they’re doing it with a lot of – well, a lot of their best players have been injured. Giancarlo Stanton isn’t even on the field right now, and the Yankees are just steamrolling everybody.

SIMON: Washington Nationals have really caught fire, too – haven’t they? – without Bryce Harper.

BRYANT: Exactly, and that’s the team that – they were, I think, 11 or 12 games under 500 earlier in the season, and now they’re in second place. They lost a tough one last night to the Braves. But I feel like this is another team that – they’ve got something to prove, as well. And especially, you’ve got those two pitchers – you’ve got Scherzer, you’ve got Strasburg – and that’s a pretty good start. I think any team in baseball would like their chances when you start the rotation with those two guys.

SIMON: And…

BRYANT: So – and let’s not forget the Twins in…

SIMON: Yep.

BRYANT: …The American League Central. And right behind them is Cleveland. There’s – and of course, the team that I used to cover, the Oakland A’s, are probably the second-hottest team in baseball. So it’s really funny, Scott. You have so many times that people talk about baseball and – oh, there’s no salary cap, and no one’s got a chance to win. And look at all of these teams that are out there who are – exactly. And by the way, they say it in that accent, as well. They say…

SIMON: I know.

BRYANT: …It just like that, right? But it’s true.

SIMON: NL Central, I just want to mention, ’cause you have a great three-way race between the Cubs…

BRYANT: And I didn’t even mention your Cubs. Exactly.

SIMON: …Who aren’t first, but the Brew Crew from Milwaukee and the Cards are close. And even the Bucs have a chance.

BRYANT: Well, and let’s not forget that last year, the Brewers were in the NLCS. So they’re close, as well. There’s a lot of teams that could win this thing, so instead of just talking about baseball being, you know, one team or two teams that can’t win – baseball actually has the most parity of all the sports.

SIMON: Baseball’s Hall of Fame abduction – abduction (laughter) – Area 51 stuff…

BRYANT: (Laughter) Baseball’s induction.

SIMON: …Induction is tomorrow. I know you get a Hall of Fame vote. Mariano Rivera, the great Yankee, is the Hall’s first unanimous inductee.

BRYANT: Indeed. And I had been withholding my vote for a couple of years because I was conflicted about steroids and conflicted about the commissioner and company inducting themselves into the Hall of Fame while allowing us the players – the voters to punish the players. And I hadn’t been a fan of that. But when it came to Rivera and also the death of Roy Halladay, I felt like I needed to vote. And so I voted this year.

And Mariano Rivera – I covered Mariano and Mike Mussina, who are both getting in. I covered both of them in the – with the Yankees in the early 2000s. And it should have happened before, but the fact that it’s Rivera – you can’t argue that. Edgar Martinez – everybody in Seattle would be very happy about that. And, Scott, you should be – what should I say? – ashamed that you’ve never been to Cooperstown. You got to go.

SIMON: Yeah. All right. Well, we’ll go together sometime. Howard Bryant of ESPN. Thanks so much.

BRYANT: Thank you.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)