Posted on 12/28/2025 11:15:17 AM PST by Bullish
The plan imposes an unsustainable financial burden on taxpayers today and in the future
After last week’s near unanimous approval by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors (our 11-member City Council) to establish a “fund” to accept and distribute so-called Reparations to qualified city recipients, will Mayor Daniel Lurie veto it?
In July 2023, San Francisco’s African American Reparations Advisory Committee unveiled a sweeping reparations plan aimed at “addressing historical injustices against Black residents.” Make no mistake, this scheme goes far beyond a mere 7-figure payout.
The 100-point Reparations proposal includes the highly publicized $5 million lump-sum payments to eligible Black adults, and adds annual income supplements to match the area median income for 250 years. It also features comprehensive Black debt forgiveness, prioritizes housing assistance, and provides targeted programs in Black education and Black health. While proponents and activists frame it as restitution for systemic harms like redlining and the War on Drugs, this plan represents an egregious overreach of government power. It violates core principles of individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, and colorblind justice enshrined in American law. It also pretends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t exist.
Not only does it flout federal and state constitutional protections against racial discrimination, it also imposes an unsustainable financial burden on taxpayers today and in the future, exacerbating social divisions rather than fostering unity. Mayor Daniel Lurie has the duty to outright reject it in favor of merit-based, race-neutral reforms.
At the federal level, the Reparations plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates that no state shall “deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.” San Francisco’s planned race-based government actions are subject to strict scrutiny, requiring a compelling governmental interest, where the plan fails miserably. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard reaffirmed that racial classifications are by nature inherently suspect and rarely justifiable, even for “remedy” purposes.
San Francisco’s plan explicitly discriminates by limiting government benefits to Black residents based on racial identity and historical criteria, such as descent from enslaved persons or residency during “discriminatory eras.” This creates a class of beneficiaries without demonstrating that the city’s actions are the least restrictive means to achieve equity.
Such monetary payments punish current non-Black residents who bear no personal culpability for past “sins,” violating the Constitution’s promise of equal treatment.
Furthermore, the plan’s administration through public organizations could implicate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in any program receiving federal financial assistance. San Francisco, reliant on federal grants for housing and education, risks lawsuits for using taxpayer dollars to fund racially exclusive benefits. Andrew Quinio, of the Pacific Legal Foundation, called the San Francisco’s ordinance a “very explicit racially discriminatory purpose,” and “horrendously unlawful” under federal law. I agree.
State-level violations are equally shocking. California’s Proposition 209 which voters enshrined in the state constitution as Article I, Section 31, explicitly bans the state and counties from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Passed by voters in 1996 as the California Civil Rights Initiative, it was designed to ensure meritocracy over racial quotas. The city’s reparations plan’s race-specific payouts, racial housing priorities, and race-based business grants directly breach this provision by favoring Black applicants over all others, regardless of individual need or merit. We should anticipate swift legal challenges, as even privately funded programs (allowed to make contributions to the new fund) when administered by government entities fall under Prop 209’s purview.
Additionally, the plan transgresses Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution, which mirrors the federal Equal Protection Clause by guaranteeing due process and equal protection.
By committing public funds and resources to race-based remedies without voter approval or sufficient appropriations, it may also violate California’s Anti-Deficiency Act (Government Code Section 16304), which prohibits city hall expenditures exceeding budgeted funds.
The Reparations plan’s 250-year income guarantee to recipients’ heirs, for instance, pledges future revenues without legislative safeguards, inviting fiscal chaos and certainly legal challenges with injunctions.
San Francisco’s city hall officials continually seek workarounds, valid and invalid, putting the breaking of federal and state law above the needs of the vast majority of city’s residents and businesses. The board of supervisors does not have our best interests at heart, clearly.
Beyond the legal transgressions, the Reparations plan embodies a fiscal recklessness antithetical to values and expectations of limited government and personal responsibility. Estimates put the cost to taxpayers at over $200 billion, equating to nearly $600,000 per non-Black household in a city already grappling with massive budget deficit of $1 Billion for 2026. This would necessitate massive tax hikes and service cuts, driving businesses and residents to flee, risking fiscal collapse. Redistributionism ignores the root causes of inequality, like family breakdown and educational failures, instead of promoting self-reliance through school choice or deregulation. It punishes innocent taxpayers, many immigrants or descendants of non-slave-owning lineages, for historical wrongs which they did not commit, echoing the moral hazard of welfare dependency. Who in their right mind would choose to live in San Francisco going forward?
Adding to these concerns is San Francisco’s famously notorious reputation for fiscal impropriety, fraud, and mismanagement; the city government is utterly untrustworthy to administer any such ambitious program, if it ever got to that point. The ongoing Public Works corruption scandal, stemming from former director Mohammed Nuru’s bribery convictions involving millions in kickbacks from contractors like Recology, has exposed systemic pay-to-play schemes. Recent cases include former employees embezzling hundreds of thousands from workers’ compensation funds, nonprofit contractors misusing millions in grants, and department heads convicted of fraud.
San Francisco voters approved a new Inspector General position in 2024 to combat persistent government waste and abuse, yet schemes continue undeterred amid budget shortfalls. Entrusting scandal-plagued bureaucrats with distributing billions in race-specific reparations benefits invites obviously inevitable corruption, waste, and favoritism, further eroding public trust and flushing taxpayer dollars down the toilet.
Recent developments underscore these flaws. In October 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed statewide reparations bills, citing practical and legal headwinds, while the separate San Francisco reparations fund, launched in December 2025 (without initial city funding), relies on “voluntary donations.” This piecemeal approach evades accountability but cannot mask the plan’s core illegitimacy. Mayor Lurie must act swiftly and decisively, to stop implementation of the Reparations Plan, pivot to jobs programs, better education and enhancing the family structure, now.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
I hope they do it, but only if they actually vet them for eligibility.
As in not having black ancestors who owned slaves or whose families moved here after slavery ended.
It will be fun when every 3rd or 4th house gets a check.
The best “reparation” the Americans can give the Africans is a ticket back to their beloved Afrika. The reason they are always PO’d at whitey is because they are home sick.
Once we get through that, then I say go for it! Reparations Indigo Black.
The plan is completely and totally unworkable in many ways. It’s sheer lunacy from utter lunatics. It shows how brain dead and un-moored from reality liberals have become.
Unbelievable isn’t it. This city has a terrible problem with homelessness and social decay, and grappling with related problems such as feces in the streets. Yet instead of dealing with those issues, they instead deal with reparations for slavery. I’m amazing what their priorities are.
Just a tithe of what you can to expect nationwide if “progressive” leftist looney toons like Warren, Dimwit O-Cortez, Talib, Omar, etc get into office power
If any race deserves reparations, it would be Asians. Chinese were mistreated from the 1850's to early 1900's. The Japanese were mistreated in late 1800's through mid-1900's. Give them reparations, but not the undeserving blacks.
Complain all ya want.
SF and the rest of the BayArrhea is now majority non-White.
All the other self obsessed “victims” of the Evil Americans will be lining up for their cut of the stolen goods.
Mexicans (er, “hispanics”), Asians (all the flavors: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, INDIAN, Paks...on and on) and of course Islamofascists will be demanding similar.
And last but not least will be Dan Lurie and his Tribe: quietly they will add themselves to the gravy list.
Bankrupt Whitey...defined as White Protestants first and foremost, but don’t worry: the Irish and Italian Catolicos will be targeted too.
That’s what’s coming.
Of course it is. Let them do it in a city like SF and they will discover that. And without committing to it nationwide.
Unconstitutional. This is in direct violation of the 14th amendment equal protection under the law. California was never a slave state, period.
“I was born a poor black child.”
“If any race deserves reparations, it would be Asians”
How many would that be?
In 1960 there were all of 36455 Chinese people in San Francisco out of 604403 residents: 82% White and 5% Chinese.
This was actually a high number since the immigration laws had been relaxed in 1943 and 1954. For almost 80 years, there was a tiny trickle of Chinese immigration, and similar with the Japanese: that had been ended in 1907 with the “Gentleman’s Agreement”.
Now SF is 35% Asian, from less then ~6% for virtually all of its history.
Do you claim we owe them money because we would not let them immigrate here? If so, are all of our immigration laws “discriminatory” and our borders illegitimate? Do we owe the rest of Planet Earth money because...we had a nation?
California never had slavery.
Not cent of taxpayer money should be used , have a bake sale to raise money for leeches
Americans didn't start slavery, however we did end it (thanks in large measure to REPUBLICAN Abraham Lincoln!)
WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS???
DETAILS, PLEASE..
You clearly do not know SF history, and the mistreatment of Asians in San Francisco. Read up on it.
Chinese-Americans were beat up by white mobs, some burned out of homes. Because of laws enacted against bringing Chinese into SF, businesses brought in Japanese workers. They too, faced being beat up by white mobs. At the beginning of WWII, Japanese-Americans with as little as 1/6th Japanese ancestry were forcibly incarcerated in concentration camps. These were Americans with American citizenship, discriminated against purely on racial terms. They lost everything, only allowed to bring two suitcases into concentration camps. Up until the mid-1960's, neighborhoods in San Francisco were forbidden to sell to Asians. (Same was true of surrounding suburbs, which is why Asians were restricted to a few neighborhoods in SF.)
Can you still claim it is because they weren't allowed to immigrate here? Truth is, they were beaten by whites soley because of race.
Can't imagine CA doing anything unconstitutional.
Asians were restricted to non-white schools. After the SF Earthquake of 1906, whites tried to remove Chinese from Chinatown. Japanese were prevented from attending schools, and the Japan government protested. It took intervention by President Roosevelt to force SF leaders to back down. The point is, there was far more discrimination against Asians than any perceived discrimination against blacks in San Francisco. Indeed, when Japanese-Americans were removed from SF in WWII, their homes in SF's Japantown were given to blacks brought in from the South. That was the beginning of the so-called black neighborhood called Fillmore that was the heart of Japantown. Only a trickle of Japanese-Americans returned following WWII. The blacks turned it into a ghetto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.