San Francisco Being Sued Over Controversial Reparations Fund
“Acknowledging past injustice does not give the government license to spend public resources on programs that sort people by race and ancestry today”
The city of San Francisco enacted a new reparations policy just before Christmas, which is supposed to pay a ridiculous amount of money to black residents, even though California never even had slavery.
Now two residents are suing the city over the plan, claiming it’s unlawful.
FOX News reports:
San Francisco residents band together to shut down reparations fund, claiming it’s ‘dividing’ the city
Richie Greenberg, one of the plaintiffs suing San Francisco over its reparations fund, claimed the measure is divisive because it solely favors Black residents.
“It is dividing the city rather than trying to unite. So, what we really need is to be focusing on how to uplift everybody rather than focusing on one group giving everything to that one group. And then everyone else is then responsible for paying for that one group,” Greenberg told Fox News Digital.
Greenberg formerly identified as a Republican and currently identifies as a centrist-conservative Democrat.
The city was sued over its reparations fund on grounds its taxpayer money is being “unlawfully” used for a policy that allegedly violates the equal protection clause.
According to the Pacific Legal Foundation, several San Francisco residents and Californians for Equal Rights Foundation sued San Francisco Thursday, challenging an ordinance that establishes a fund for Black residents.
The lawsuit alleges that the ordinance is discriminating on the basis of race because it allows taxpayer money to be funneled into the fund. The plaintiffs said a win would protect taxpayers from supporting a government-based racially motivated program and establish boundaries for other cities implementing similar policies.
“Acknowledging past injustice does not give the government license to spend public resources on programs that sort people by race and ancestry today,” said Andrew Quinio, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
More from the New York Post:
While advocates argue that reparations are needed to redress discrimination of black San Franciscans, who suffered under policies such as redlining and redevelopment that decimated many black-owned homes and businesses, critics call the plan empty virtue-signaling at best.
“They have put rhetoric and ideology ahead of the city’s residents,” Greenberg said, referring to Lurie and the Board of Supervisors that voted unanimously in favor of the reparations bill.
The lawsuit asks the city to permanently end the reparations plan.
“It is unfortunate that mayor Lurie deliberately avoided mention of his signing legislation creating a reparations fund December 23, 2025 as he knew the backlash which would ensue,” he added. “Lurie is famous for his non-stop posting and boasting on social media all his accolades and cheering for the city, yet he failed to mention this entirely.”
I’ll leave you with this clip of the great Thomas Sowell.
Thomas Sowell on reparations:
“The number of whites who were enslaved in North Africa by the Barbary pirates exceeded the number of Africans enslaved in the United States and in the American colonies before that put together.” pic.twitter.com/c3r0QpO1Mj
— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) May 10, 2023
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I dunno but wouldn’t a law based on racial make up be unconstitutional? 🤔
It isn’t based on racial makeup. But yes, it’s almost certainly unconstitutional, which is why so many people are suing.
Since it’s a fund specifically for blacks, how is it possible NOT to be based on racial makeup?
No, it isn’t “specifically for blacks”. Eligibility is not based on race.
On December 16, 2025, the City passed ordinance 258-25 which calls for the City to adopt the plans and recommendations of fhe San Francisco Reparations Plan 2023. The ordinance states:
While I suppose that leaves some wiggle room for a “chattel enslaved person” being of various races, the fact of the matter is that the Reparations Plan, (found here: https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/AARAC%20Reparations%20Final%20Report%20July%207%2C%202023.pdf) offers not a single proposal that is not based on race. Not a one.
The very first recommendation is:
Read it again…..“that Black San Franciscans have endured….
Do you see any mention of other races in the rationale? Or the eligibility requirements?
No one else does.
Sorry, Milhouse, but you are so far out in left field that you aren’t even in the ball park on this one.
Hmmm, that’s what the claim is by the plaintiff. Right here:
because it solely favors Black residents
And from the NYP quote:
advocates argue that reparations are needed to redress discrimination of black San Franciscans
And, published in the NYP 2 years ago:
“A lump sum payment would compensate the affected population … and will redress the economic and opportunity losses that Black San Franciscans have endured, collectively, as the result of both intentional decisions and unintended harms perpetuated by City policy,” the San Francisco African American Reparations Advisory Committee said in a draft report issued last month, Fox News Digital reported.
So, you may be right that the actual law says “benefits to ‘individuals who are black and/or descendants of a chattel enslaved person and have experienced a proven harm in San Francisco,'” But, it’s clearly aimed almost entirely at blacks, and is intended as a gimme to blacks in San Francisco. (Note that “and/or” means the blacks don’t have to have been chattel slaves – but any other beneficiary does.)
gitarcarver, the rationale is not the law. The rationale speaks loosely of Black San Franciscans having endured this that and the other. But the actual eligibility criteria are (1) not limited to black people, but more importantly (2) don’t apply to most black people. To be eligible a person must both be black or prove descent from a slave of any race and prove that they personally have been harmed.
So while race can be a factor in eligibility, it’s neither necessary nor sufficient. That’s enough to make it constitutional on those grounds. Consider that the courts have long held that when police form reasonable suspicion in order to stop someone, race can’t itself be grounds for reasonable suspicion but it can be a factor in it. A person can be stopped because in addition to all the factors his race makes it more likely that he’s done something, while someone else who fulfills all the same other factors but is of a different race will not be stopped, because the other factors together don’t quite add up to reasonable suspicion. If it works in that context, why should it not work in this one?
But overall the whole program seems unconstitutional, and that’s why so many separate suits have been filed against it. I expect it to be struck down.
The ordinance says the City will follow the plans and recommendations of the San Francisco Reparations Plan 2023.
Either the City follows that Plan or they are breaking the ordinance.
Your point about the plan not being the law is irrelevant because the City says they have to follow the plan.
It doesn’t matter what it says is its goal. All that matters is the actual rules that were adopted.
WHEN will Thomas Sowell get the Presidential American Medal of Freedom? He is such an intellectual with common sense – rare. He deserves this medal.
“Greenberg formerly identified as a Republican and currently identifies as a centrist-conservative Democrat.”
Tell me you plan to run for office without telling the FEC.
There are no centrist-conservative Democrats. He is a liar, Ergo he is a typical democrat. I don’t care if he is one of those suing.
Yes, there are. In the current political environment they don’t usually get far in elected office, but they certainly exist. And this guy isn’t in elected office. He’s just a voter.
How much money did they waste on the committee, the report, the whole shebang?
This should have never gotten off the starting blocks. SMH
Because we have absolutely NO consequences for elected officials doing grotesquely un-Constitutional things, apart from electing them out of office.
The committee was made up of 15 members, the final report was 400
pages, and among the recommendations was a five million dollar payment to any black person who could show harm.
My guess is that the entire enterprise burned through,5-10 million dollars while San Francisco was spending its way to a one billion dollar deficit.
I know this is just about treason, but…
but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted…
It really should be applicable to all laws. And that’s exactly what they’re doing – claiming a “taint of blood” for all white people.
Also, I want them to make Africa pay for it. Because those are the ones that captured and sold the slaves.
They’re not claiming anything about white people. And the reparations aren’t for slavery; they’re for what the City of San Francisco is alleged to have done in recent times to the descendants of former slaves. You can’t blame the people who originally enslaved their ancestors for that. Nor can you blame any individual today; but you can blame the corporate entity that committed these wrongs, assuming that the wrongs were indeed committed, which seems dubious.
You REALLY need to read the Plan.
You are making statements that are not supported by facts.
So it is not for slavery, exactly as I said. Therefore the fact that there was no slavery in CA is irrelevant. The compensation is for things that the City of San Francisco is alleged to have done, and is to go only to people who can prove that they personally have been harmed by these alleged things.
Also, no taxpayer money is going to this, although it’s possible that some might go to it in the future.
Doesn’t it cost more money, time and effort to prove you are a descendent of a slave than it does to get an ID to vote?
This is going to be interesting. The question is whether a law couched in race-neutral wording but with a de facto racially-determined outcome can be held to in fact be racist.
However, I am not sure it’s necessary to even address that question in making a decision to overturn the law.
I wonder whether, leaving the question of racial bias aside, government money can be used to compensate people today for wrongs committed by individuals who are no longer alive against other people who are no longer alive.
If so, could the San Franciscan grandchildren of “Okies” whose farms were “wrongly” seized through foreclosure during the “Dust Bowl” days and who were absolutely discriminated against by Californians (Note: See “The Grapes Of Wrath” for a fictional depiction) claim reparations under the same theory?
Is there a DNA test requirement or can anyone identify as black? (Asking for a friend named Rachel.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
It doesn’t matter. To be eligible for compensation you have to prove that you personally have been harmed in some specific way by the city’s allegedly racist policies of the past. If you can actually prove that, then it shouldn’t matter whether you are black or not.
Just as with hate crime laws, where it doesn’t matter whether the victim is the race that the perpetrator thought he was; all that matters is that the crime was committed because of the victim’s perceived race. If you punch someone because he’s white and it turns out he isn’t, it’s still a hate crime.
Leave a Comment