San Francisco Board of Supervisors Unanimously Supports Reparation Payments

We have been following the recommendations of reparations for black residents of San Francisco, including a proposed payment of $5 million per resident payment. The Board of Supervisors met Tuesday and reportedly gave unanimous support for reparations. Among the possible forms of reparations, the Board is considering a guaranteed annual income of $97,000 for 250 years and a home “for just $1 a family.”

The city council voted unanimously to create the reparations committee in 2020. The African American Reparations Advisory Committee voted to give $5 million to each eligible Black resident as reparations.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) created his own Reparations Task Force, which just reached its own recommendations for $223,000 per person. Others have insisted the figure should be $350,000 for individuals and another $250,000 for Black-owned businesses. One California politician insisted the figure needs to be $800,000 per person, reflecting the average cost of a home in the state.

Even Disney has gotten into the act with a controversial children’s episode in which cartoon children demand reparations.

Notably, California’s law expressly states that this money should not be treated as compensation for federal reparations. Some congressional Democrats have pushed for similar federal reparations and passed a bill out of the House Judiciary Committee in 2021 that failed to receive a floor vote. BET founder Robert Johnson has called for $14 trillion in federal reparations.

The proposals now put the San Francisco politicians in a bind after declaring that reparations are a moral imperative. Some are already saying that they will not accept reduced awards. One well-known California activist declared: “It’s a debt that’s owed, we worked for free. We’re not asking; we’re telling you.”

San Francisco is already facing a $728 million budget shortfall.

The Board notably did not approve the proposed $5 million payments and some members issued statements that bordered on the incomprehensible. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman spoke to “those of my constituents who lost their minds about this proposal, it’s not something we’re doing or we would do for other people. It’s something we would do for our future, for everybody’s collective future.

Unpack that for a moment. “It is not something we’re doing . . . it’s something we would do for our future.” That sounds a lot like wanting to be seen as approving reparations while not approving reparations.

Virtue signaling has ended with the formal proposal. If the Board was not playing black voters by dangling the possibility of reparations, it can now prove its commitment by approving these payments. Of course, it would likely bankrupt the city, but that was not a concern when people like Mandelman were declaring their support for reparations. After all, if this is a moral imperative, it would seem that the “future” can’t wait for Mandelman and his colleagues.

83 thoughts on “San Francisco Board of Supervisors Unanimously Supports Reparation Payments”

  1. I am looking forward to the descendants of Civil War Union soldiers who lost their lives freeing blacks realizing they have a greater case for reparations than the descendants of black slaves do. Apparently the concern by black activists for compensation does not extend to those who paid a much higher price for the freedom others.

    1. How ’bout a few bars of “409,” Bri, no, “Don’t Worry, Baby,” yeah, “Don’t Worry Baby?”

  2. Facebook is shedding another 10,000 jobs and closing 5000 open job openings. They are not alone. Many young professionals are loosing their cushy jobs in the tech and finance sector. Companies and high tax payers are fleeing states that are imposing burdensome regulations and taxes.

    Perhaps it’s time that local, state and national politicians and leaders open meetings with story hour. Start with the Goose that Laud the Golden Egg.”

  3. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
    I say this whole thing started when we ended slavery but [inadvertently] created a dependent class of persons and a cyclical racial category of “entitlement.”
    Apologies in advance for such a lengthy post, but, Lest we forget:
    In 1862, President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act, which gave African Americans the opportunity to own land for free. It gave 160 acres of public lands to anyone, -including freed slaves, for a small filing fee and an agreement to work the land and improve it. “The only personal requirement was that the homesteader be either the head of a family or 21 years of age; thus, U.S. citizens, freed slaves, new immigrants intending to become naturalized, single women, and people of all races were eligible. The potential for free land attracted hundreds of thousands of settlers…and enticed a migratory wave of thousands of African Americans from the South.” Where did all that go?

    Then, in 1865, following the Civil War, Union General William Sherman wrote Special Field Order No. 15, under which freed slaves were to be given “40 acres of land and a mule.” Thousands upon thousands of Blacks took advantage. Meanwhile, back East, former slaves and descendants of slaves were making WELL-DESERVED $$$ millions with their inventions and products (Harlem’s Madam CJ Walker; George Carter; Warren Clay Coleman; Jeremiah Hamilton, etc.). Rewards were there for those who worked for them. Where did all that go?

    Then came the Civil Rights Act affording racial protections and punishments for “discrimination,” (–admittedly, Whites were not particularly interested in living alongside what may deemed a “lazy” culture of persons whom they found increasingly uneducated, unmotivated, and primitive in lifestyle values–after all, this clashed with the dominant European “work ethic” that led to the advanced industrialization and development of Western culture). Huge amounts of dollars were paid by discriminating offenders –racial peers serving on jury trials made sure of that…) This created both a palpable deterrent for discriminatory conduct, but also a false sense of worth and entitlement for those who believed that any rejection in employment or circumstance was due to their race and worth $millions in punishment. Moreover, while immigration law required that applicants learn the English language and evince ability for self-sustenance and/or “sponsorship,” we endorsed “Black English” in our schools and “Affirmative Action” in our employment and educational arenas. Where did that get us?

    But wait! There’s more!
    Finally–to prevent national decline, the government was paying out free public housing, food stamps, and social welfare benefits–asking nothing in return with respect to requiring “skills development,” education, or self-sufficiency. Social welfare recipients continued to have multiple babies out of wedlock (single parent households)–without a source of income to support them, because it “increased their welfare check.” This also created an “idle-time” culture of non-employment benefits appurtenant to rampant drug sales, prostitution, gambling, flash mob theft, car jacking, racially-disproportionate robbery and murder crime–all costing the nation $billions -and now, demands for reparations?

    I can honestly say that I never even think of race…until confronted with such nonsense.
    How many times do we need to pay this bill?

    1. Lin,

      I read an article many years ago written by a black man, where he was building the case that desegregation was the start of the downfall for black populations. Before desegregation, blacks had their own communities and they were torn apart once they were segregated in by force since they had to now compete with the established white communities. Instead, had they let the black integrate organically like other nationalities did in the past, we would have avoided the current victim class.

  4. In the movie “Jerry Maguire,” a famous line emerged “Show Me the Money”. This proposal is beyond absurd and penetrates well beyond the border of insanity. This is remindful of post World War I and the burden placed on Germany for reparation, [Treaty of Versailles]. To quote Sir Geddes of the time “The Germans, are going to pay every penny; they are going to be squeezed as a lemon is squeezed-until the pips squeak. My only doubt is not whether we can squeeze hard enough, but whether there is enough juice.” Squeezing in the end resulted in hyperinflation, privation and the rise of the Third Reich. Can America avoid the same if the fools in San Francisco and California become main-streamed across America? This whole notion that I or You should pay someone who has never been, I repeat NEVER been enslaved is ludicrous. This is WOKE gone bat-sh___ crazy!

  5. Where s the money coming from? Expropriate the property of white landowners of course! Start with liberals.

    1. Take the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa” back to Africa and put it where the sun don’t shine.

      When do actual Americans wake up to the stealth,, “woke” enemy?

      “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

      – Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

  6. Where is the money coming from? Expropriate the property of white landowners of course! Start with liberals.

  7. Democrats always like to give money to the most undeserving persons having middle-class workers of all races responsible for paying it. We see that here where persons that were never slaves are to receive compensation even if their families were slave owners. We see this with the banks, where taxpayers eventually pay “reparations” to billion-dollar companies.

    Do any Democrats see anything wrong with this?

  8. I self identify as a black man and a SFO resident, even though I am neither black or a resident of SFO.
    So you still should give me the money.


    1. Stop attempting to deny the constitutional rights and freedoms of Americans you ——- communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, demopublican, RINO, AINO).

  9. We are all individuals. We all have a claim for the damages that we have suffered, and we are all liable for the damages that we as individuals inflict. That is JUSTICE. Anything beyond that is government enforced theft or SOCIAL JUSTICE, by which I mean — not justice, or injustice. Alexander Fraser Tytler once said, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.” Well, it looks like that is where we are at. Should be interesting to see what comes next.

    And if we are going to breakdown the races that historically were victimized by Anglo California, the African Americans are not even in the top two. As pointed out by others, California was not a slave state, and blacks voluntarily moved there because of the of opportunity to find work and the discrimination was thought to be better than elsewhere in the country. On the other side, the Native American population of California was allegedly victims of a GENOCIDE during the 19th century by the white devils. It has to be true, because Wikipedia tells me so. And the Chinese, who actually built the state, also greatly suffered at the hands of the California white man. Don’t forget the Los Angeles Chinese MASSACRE of 1871. It may be the largest lynching in American history (but don’t tell that to the Italians in New Orleans). Surely, if we are going to right historic wrongs by doling out government fiat currency, the Native Americans and the Chinese deserve first consideration. Ah, but “deserves” got nothing to do with it. This is just Alexander Fraser Tytler’s late republic nonsense talking.

    1. @Tommy,
      You forgot the Japanese which were interred during WWII.

      Just saying… oh wait, they did get some reparations… pennies on the dollar.


  10. Well it all sounds like good news for the half dozen African Americans who could possibly afford to live in San Francisco

    1. Hyperbole aside, according to Wikipedia (take it for what it’s worth but this looks accurate) “San Francisco’s African American population has declined in recent decades, from 13.4% of the population in 1970 to 6.1% in 2010.” In 2020 it dipped under 5% and is surely still going down given the cost to live there.

      So at least you can’t say the political hacks are doing it for the votes

  11. As the good professor points out, San Fran already has a $728 million dollar budget shortfall.
    Where are they going to get the money?
    Why, they will demand the Fed to just give it to them i.e. print it out of thin air!
    Then, the city will then pay reparations, but they will also TAX it! (by the way, $97k does not go very far in CA let alone San Fran. A house for a dollar? What is that going to look like? I read somewhere they were paying something like $80k for a tiny house)
    So, the Fed provides the money, reparations paid, house for $1, San Fran has a new tax source, everyone wins!
    Except as with most things in CA and especially San Fran, it will be mismanaged, a total charlie fox, an abject failure, and everyone will know it.

  12. I can’t wait to see how they finance it. Since Boston is in the beginning phases of reparations and the “identifies as African American for 10 years on public docs” rule – I just realized my kids identify as African American. It really makes sense for so many reasons, this just makes it stupid not to do it.

  13. Bodies that have the power to spend money like this, should first pass a law that defines eligibility.
    So that up front, and give it to the anti side to close all the loop holes.

    Google, Pigford settlement, to get a hint of the chicanery possible.

    1. Under San Francisco’s draft recommendation, a person must be at least 18 years old and identified as “Black/African American” in public documents for at least 10 years. Eligible people must also meet two of eight other criteria, though the list may change.

      Those criteria include being born in or migrating to San Francisco between 1940 and 1966 and living in the city for least 13 years; being displaced from San Francisco by urban renewal between 1954 and 1973, or the descendant of someone who was; being a person incarcerated by the war on drugs, or their descendant; or being a descendant of an enslaved U.S. person before 1865.

  14. The CA Constitution, written in 1849, prohibited slavery in the state. The following year, CA was admitted to the union under the Compromise of 1850, a federal law which also allowed slavery. So there was never slavery in that state, and CA sent gold, horses, and troops to support the Union effort. One of those troops was my GG grandfather, an Irish immigrant who was drafted into the union Army from his home in Northern CA.

Leave a Reply