Land, Loss, Change

Several compounding factors led to the transfer of property from Black families in Elm Bend:

• Economic Difficulty: Families like the Caise family faced persistent challenges in maintaining rural acreage. They often chose to sell their land after years of paying property taxes on parcels that were difficult to access and develop. For instance, the Caise property near the creek could only be reached through the Sutherlands’ land on Sarah Blake Drive, highlighting the difficulty of holding rural acreage in a changing economy.
• Forced Transfers (Auctions): Some land was lost not by choice, but through auctions and transfers, often due to unpaid taxes or legal processes. A notable example involves the property where the St. John A.M.E. of Elm Bend church house stood; it was own by Rena Maxberry. When descendants could not be located to claim the property, the land was eventually auctioned off and sold to Harold Marshall for around $8,000.00.
• The Descendant Divide: The geographical distance between descendants living in cities and their ancestral rural properties made oversight and maintenance challenging, often contributing to tax delinquency and eventual loss.

Since 1990, land conservancy efforts requiring 30 acre lots and restricting development, coupled with the soaring cost of farmland, have shaped the area. While these efforts protect the natural landscape, they create significant barriers:

• Restricted Access: These rules often make it difficult for the descendants of Elm Bend’s Black families to reclaim, rebuild, or develop the lands that once belonged to their ancestors.
• Preservation vs. Belonging: The current balance between natural preservation and descendant access continues to echo the long, challenging history of land ownership that began here over a century ago. The land remains, but the power to use and hold it is often out of reach for the families who first cultivated it.
• Preservation will keep farm land in farming and help protect the legacy of Elm Bend.