San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie has signed into law the establishment of a reparations fund aimed at addressing the historical injustices of slavery and racial discrimination. This fund, passed by the city’s Board of Supervisors on December 9 and approved by Lurie on December 23, is intended to implement the recommendations outlined in the San Francisco Reparations Plan 2023. The plan proposes significant one-time payments of up to $5 million for eligible Black San Franciscans.
In his remarks, Mayor Lurie emphasized the city’s pressing budget concerns, pointing out that San Francisco is currently facing a $1 billion budget deficit. As such, while the law establishes the framework for a reparations fund, it does not allocate any immediate funds. “I was elected to drive San Francisco’s recovery, and that’s what I’m focused on every day. We are not allocating money to this fund,” Lurie stated. Instead, the city will prioritize funding initiatives aimed at making the city safer and cleaner.
The establishment of this fund is part of a broader conversation about reparations in the United States, with cities like Evanston, Illinois, leading the way in offering reparations to some Black residents since 2021. Other cities have also formed task forces to investigate reparations for Black Americans. The San Francisco reparations fund, which will be managed by the Human Rights Commission, is designed to support a range of reparative measures beyond just direct payments, including financial education and income supplements for lower-income African American households.
While the recommendations from the Reparations Advisory Committee in San Francisco have garnered significant attention, the immediate future of the fund remains uncertain due to the lack of allocated funds. Some city officials, like Supervisor Shamann Walton, acknowledge that building up the fund and developing selection criteria will take time, considering this a crucial initial step towards addressing past injustices.
The idea of reparations continues to evoke mixed reactions. Critics have raised concerns about the feasibility and legality of such payments, while advocates argue for the necessity of tangible actions to rectify historical wrongs. Reverend Amos C. Brown pointedly remarked on the contradiction inherent in the approval of the fund without any financial commitments, stressing that “an apology without action and a fund without an allocation are not reparations.”
As the city navigates these complex issues, the conversation around reparations in San Francisco reflects a broader national discourse on how to effectively address the enduring impacts of systemic racism and inequality.