Reject the San Francisco Reparations Plan

Reject Segregation.
This Plan is Unconstitutional.


The DRAFT San Francisco Reparations Plan

This plan exposes the worst of San Francisco's activism and is unconscionably detrimental to our city, as well as simply being unconstitutional. It therefore must be rejected.

Analysis by Political Commentator and former candidate for mayor, Richie Greenberg

Image of Richie Greenberg

Posts on Twitter: @richieSF2016



READ TIME: 10 minutes


In the wake of the tragic George Floyd murder, Covid-19 lockdowns and the Defund the Police movement all in 2020, a special committee was formed at the direction of the San Francisco Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, which is our City Council, to study reparations to Black residents of the city. Initially convening June 2020, the 15-member SF African-American Reparations Advisory Committee (SFAARAC) created a 60-page analysis and action plan. The resulting document entitled Draft San Francisco Reparations Plan was then presented to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors December 2022, resulting in immediate condemnation from across the city by a multitude of San Franciscans, the subject reaching heated debate by analysts and activists across the nation. Moreover, The Plan has been largely misunderstood. Readers, reporters and national media alike have been led to believe this Plan is about seeking to right a wrong due to slavery prior to 1863. But digging into the pages, we see very clearly it strays far beyond that. Bottom line: A 15-member committee spent a year and a half using taxpayers' money to produce a delusional, insulting, racist, unlawful and unconstitutional proposal - which fundamentally advocates for a segregation of the Black community into an insanely costly, unworkable and extraordinarily privileged class, to be paid for by San Francisco's non-Black residents and businesses. Basically, Apartheid.




RADIO APPEARANCE from March 16, 2023:

Listen to "@JohnandKenShow talks to SF activist Richie Greenberg about the SF Reparations Plan".



Federal and California state laws prevent a government’s awarding of resources to groups of individuals based on race, gender or ethnicity, in terms of employment, contracts and education. But this is precisely what this Reparations Plan aims to do. The Plan clearly violates California Prop 209, as well as the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. In fact, the Plan committee laments this legal dilemma in its opening paragraphs, reiterated throughout its 60-pages, then pivots to a call to action: Let's focus on organizing a repeal of Prop 209 in California. Realistically, the repeal of any state proposition is a very high hurdle (along with the Federal 14th Amendment issue). Additionally, CA Article 34 prohibits the development of low-income affordable housing using state or local taxpayers' money without approval of voters. And further, this plan will most likely run afoul of Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Regretfully, the reparations committee seeks to ignore state and federal laws, and seeks to challenge these laws. This would guarantee an avalanche of lawsuits from the start, dooming their reparations effort. Yet, though clearly unlawful, authors of The Plan completed and submitted it for review anyway. At this stage, The Plan is legally, constitutionally invalid and dead in the water.


Reading through these 60-pages, readers are struck by an obvious omission: a complete lack of detailing who would be liable to pay reparations. The Plan spells out which Black San Franciscans would be eligible to receive reparations, largely based on years being resident in the city and several categories of victimhood. Yet, as for paying out those monies, there is no indication whether individual residents would be responsible (forced) to fork over funds, or just a portion of residents, or businesses, or government agencies. Have The Plan's authors formulated the answer to this very important detail yet? Outraged San Franciscans want to know.


CLICK TO OBTAIN COMMENTARY: pdf here   At the crux of criticism is The Plan's desire to levy a reparations tax (though by law, only voters may approve or reject a proposed tax); its blueprint to establish neo-Apartheid segregation in San Francisco, an "Us vs. Them" policy encompassing a massive separation of the Black minority community (approximately 5% of the city's population) into a preferred, prioritized class of residents through funding of Black-owned banks, a Black health care system, a Black-run education system with Black cultural-centric curriculum, Black-priority home ownership, Black community spaces, even Black mental health therapists to counter alleged “White Supremacy” curriculum currently being taught; it also seeks cancelation of Black consumers' credit card debt and loans, along with exemptions for property tax and business taxes for Black recipients. A new, successor reparations management committee will be formed once the current committee closes, or "sunsets", this June 2023. This new committee aims to receive all reparations funds, empowered to manage the disbursements to Black recipients. The committee seeks to operate outside the auspices of the City of San Francisco government. This is absolutely ludicrous.


The Plan's authors seek to self-impose a psychological "walling-off" of their own Black community in the southeast section of the city from the rest of San Francisco. Such a drastic separation would be accomplished by replacement of San Francisco's current integrated education, health care, banking, town squares, tech hubs, housing and cultural aspects, with Black-only or Black-prioritized counterparts. At a time in our city's history (and indeed the history of our nation), the last thing San Francisco should ever consider is to fully segregate any portion of the population by race, enclosed by a wall literal or figurative, even if that segment of the population desires it. No good has ever come from walling-off residents (think historic ghettos, Berlin, the racial segregation walls of Detroit and Miami's past Jim Crow era).


Fiscally, this Plan is not only unfeasible, it would destroy the city. Total lump-sum payouts of $5 million to qualified Black recipients could exceed the city's annual budget nearly twenty-fold. But The Plan is a lot more than a one-time payout, it's ongoing. Annual subsidies to qualified Black recipients would perpetually siphon funds from the rest of the city, essentially laying San Francisco in financial ruin. Residents would leave. Home values would tank. Businesses would flee.


Instead of honored and seasoned individuals from across industries selected to join this reparations committee, being picked from a pool of city hall officials, or experienced budget analysts, or attorneys in legislative or constitutional law, or economic advisors, sociologists, city planners, civil engineers, masters’ of public health administration, major corporation executives, federal or state banking systems officials, hospital administration executives – those being finally selected were none of the aforementioned. The actual reparations committee therefore lacks professional and ethical standing, and hasn’t been cautioned how deeply their reparations plan violates state and federal constitutional and civil rights laws.

These are the members of the committee and the reason they were selected:



The Draft Plan is just that, a draft. It is subject to revision, deletion, deliberation, partial or total rejection. The Draft has been presented to the San Francisco 11-member Board of Supervisors (our City Council), who will hold numerous hearings, inviting public comment. A vote by the Board of Supervisors on this Draft Plan is scheduled to be held in June 2023. Therefore, this website will be updated as the days and weeks progress towards that June vote. Content and analysis will be updated here along the way. Be sure to bookmark this site and return often, or sign up for email news updates below.


Pew Research: Black Middle Class is Growing: A Hopeful National Trend

California Globe: Cease and Desist Filed

Washington Examiner: Reparations Belongs in The 19th Century

Morningstar Press: Reparations Plan Lacks Credibility

NewsMax TV: Video: SF Reparations Looks Like Apartheid

LA Talk Radio: KFI Los Angeles John & Ken Show

California Globe: Reparations Unlawful

SF Richmond District Review: Reject the Draft Reparations Plan

California Globe: Reparations Plan is neo-Apartheid

Providece, RI NBC: NAACP Rejects Cash Payments

Newsweek: Reparations Political Ploy

NewsMax: Video: Reparations Facts vs Feelings

Washington Examiner: SF Mayor Will Not Pay $50 Mil Advance

CBS Bay Area TV KPIX: Video: Reparations Controversy



The San Francisco Reparations Committee *had* a moment. They had a teaching moment, with the eyes and ears of the city, indeed the nation, trained on them. They blew it. The SFAARAC committee was wholly unprepared to make their case- instead presenting an embarrassingly unworkable, unlawful and unconstitutional plan which did little to rally support from the diverse, inclusive community we have in San Francisco. Teaching moments include educating the public with an ongoing series of lectures, with presentations held in the various districts and neighborhoods around San Francisco. With guests from nationally prominent scholars and lawmakers invited - to trace the history of the San Francisco Black/African-American experience. With preserving of historical landmarks, photographs, movies/videos, writings, all with purpose to teach locals. Instead, the committee sought to ram through outrageous financial confiscation legislation along with support of several years of tearing down momuments, statues and renaming of schools. The effort by the committee is indeed tragic. This plan was a colossal waste of taxpayers money to produce. It is an incredibly unserious, incomplete, unlawful, unconstitutional, shockingly racist, impossible to fulfill and astonishingly exploitive plan, already igniting racial tension, thrusting propaganda and false hopes of huge money payouts to a gullible and vulnerable Black segment of San Francisco's population. Any city hall official who’s read all 60 pages cannot respecfully support it. A policy of "Us vs. Them" with racial segregation, which this plan firmly advocates, is never a moral, respectable or even lawful solution.


KEY TAKEAWAYS (download The Plan below for page references)

Committee seeks a "Reparations Tax" - page 50
Committee seeks to create new Reparations management committee after June 2023 - page 50
Committee alleges “Genetic trauma” - page 3
Committee alleges a current policy of "white supremacy" - page 3
Committee advocates to overturn Prop 209, CA state law – page 9
Committee creates categories to qualify for Reparations – page 30
Committee seeks to be independent of government of San Francisco – page 31
Committee seeks exclusively Black credit scores – page 32
Committee seeks to create Black banks – page 32
Committee seeks Black credit card/loan debts forgiven – page 33
Committee seeks Black business tax and payroll tax exemptions – page 33
Committee desires a Black land and building acquisition trust – page 33
Committee seeks to refinance Black mortgages - page 34
Committee seeks San Francisco pay for Black condo fees, parking, maintenance, repairs – page 34
Committee proposes convert Black public housing to condos with one dollar buyout – page 35
Committee proposes home vacancies of 3 or more months given priority to Black residents – page 37
Committee proposes purchase and run Black community centers – page 38
Committee seeks to prioritize Black industries – page 38
Committee seeks prioritize Black employment training, certification, contracts – page 39
Committee seeks Black tax relief and exemption from payroll tax - page 39
Committee to create Black campuses: Black business hubs, manufacturing, cannabis, media, AI, biotech - page 39
Committee seeks takeover vacant downtown San Francisco office space – page 39
Committee to rally support to repeal California Prop 209 – page 49
Committee states must repeal California constitution Article 34 - page 49
Committee seeks cash payments to Blacks to alleviate stress and anxiety caused by financial insecurity – page 48
Committee seeks funding Black schools, Black churches, Black community spaces – page 46


FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS  (Which laws The Plan may run afoul of)

California Prop 209 - also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI approved November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity or national origin specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education, preventing the government from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment. Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California.
California Article 1 Section 7 - California state constitution provides a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws.
California Article XI, Section 10(a) CA state Contitution provides a local government body ... may not pay a claim under an agreement made without authority of law.
California Article 34 - California state constitution requires voter approval before developing, constructing, or acquiring in any manner public housing (low-rent housing project) in a community.
Federal Title VI of Civil Rights Act - Was enacted as part of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance such as grants and student loans as well as racial segregation in schools and public accommodations, and employment discrimination.
Federal Title VII of Civil Rights Act – Also from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal employment law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Federal 14th Amendment to US Constitution – Guarantees all citizens equal protection under law; a state shall not violate a citizen’s privileges; shall not deprive any person of property without due process of law; Regarding Segregation: In 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education) the Supreme Court unanimously held that separate schools for blacks and whites violated the Equal Protection Clause.










Make a donation to support Richie Greeenberg's advocacy



Public Comments:

Media Contact: