Mom Confessions

"A controversial draft reparations proposal that includes a $5 million lump-sum payment for each eligible Black person could make San Francisco the first major U.S. city to fund reparations, though it faces steep financial headwinds and blistering criticism from conservatives.

Tuesday’s meeting of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will include a presentation by San Francisco’s African American Reparations Advisory Committee, which released its draft report in December. The $5 million-per-person payment is among more than 100 recommendations ranging from offering grants to buy and maintain homes to exempting Black businesses from paying taxes.

Supervisors can vote to adopt all, none or some of the recommendations and can change them. Several board members have expressed concerns over the potential hit the lump-sum payment and other options would have on the city budget, already facing a shortfall."

https://fortune.com/2023/03/14/san-fran ... er_FORTUNE

First of all your article needs more context on why the reparations are being considered https://www.axios.com/local/san-francis ... tions-plan

So here's my issue with the plan for reparations is it doesn't address the systemic policies that are in place that are continuing the disparities from the past. That would require an overhaul of city governance and how funding is spent in regards to equitable distribution. Giving money to people doesn't address the ongoing disparities or lack of funding in poorer neighborhoods, it doesn't fix their roads, it doesn't improve their schools, it doesn't reduce the crime, it doesn't help grow the businesses. All it does is just allow some people (those who qualify) to move to a different more affluent area. Thus the racial inequalities and disparities will continue and even worsen.

It seems way too general and a little ridiculous. How can anyone prove they were “displaced” by higher rents. If they want to do something to improve lives now they could pay for college for anyone living in public housing and build better schools in low income areas.

Baconqueen13 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 7:43 pm First of all your article needs more context on why the reparations are being considered https://www.axios.com/local/san-francis ... tions-plan

So here's my issue with the plan for reparations is it doesn't address the systemic policies that are in place that are continuing the disparities from the past. That would require an overhaul of city governance and how funding is spent in regards to equitable distribution. Giving money to people doesn't address the ongoing disparities or lack of funding in poorer neighborhoods, it doesn't fix their roads, it doesn't improve their schools, it doesn't reduce the crime, it doesn't help grow the businesses. All it does is just allow some people (those who qualify) to move to a different more affluent area. Thus the racial inequalities and disparities will continue and even worsen.

I agree. I go back and forth in my head on how reparations should be paid out to be most effective and how to quantify how much someone should be owed but I agree that reparations should be paid. I've always thought that that payment should be in the form of community development and programs instead of individual payout but I don't know what those who would be the recipient of reparations feel would be fair?

Lmao… best part is, who is eligible?

Anyone who has “identified” as Black for ten years or more… so Rachael Dolezal is totally in the running for a payment.

BobCobbMagob wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:36 pm Lmao… best part is, who is eligible?

Anyone who has “identified” as Black for ten years or more… so Rachael Dolezal is totally in the running for a payment.

Never a good idea to base laws on current trendy wording. How do they even explain the legal definition to identify as Black for at least ten years. Imagine the people coming forward with that loophole.

Lemons wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:23 pm

BobCobbMagob wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:36 pm Lmao… best part is, who is eligible?

Anyone who has “identified” as Black for ten years or more… so Rachael Dolezal is totally in the running for a payment.

Never a good idea to base laws on current trendy wording. How do they even explain the legal definition to identify as Black for at least ten years. Imagine the people coming forward with that loophole.

From the OP article:

"Under San Francisco’s draft recommendation, a person must be at least 18 years old and have 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 1996 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; attending the city’s public schools before they were fully desegregated; or being a descendant of an enslaved U.S. person before 1865."

Thelma Harper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:28 am

Lemons wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:23 pm

BobCobbMagob wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 8:36 pm Lmao… best part is, who is eligible?

Anyone who has “identified” as Black for ten years or more… so Rachael Dolezal is totally in the running for a payment.

Never a good idea to base laws on current trendy wording. How do they even explain the legal definition to identify as Black for at least ten years. Imagine the people coming forward with that loophole.

From the OP article:

"Under San Francisco’s draft recommendation, a person must be at least 18 years old and have 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 1996 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; attending the city’s public schools before they were fully desegregated; or being a descendant of an enslaved U.S. person before 1865."

So a 22 year old with Nordic parents could be eligible as long as they say they’ve identified as Black since they were 11…

BobCobbMagob wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:08 am

Thelma Harper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:28 am

Lemons wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:23 pm

Never a good idea to base laws on current trendy wording. How do they even explain the legal definition to identify as Black for at least ten years. Imagine the people coming forward with that loophole.

From the OP article:

"Under San Francisco’s draft recommendation, a person must be at least 18 years old and have 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 1996 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; attending the city’s public schools before they were fully desegregated; or being a descendant of an enslaved U.S. person before 1865."

So a 22 year old with Nordic parents could be eligible as long as they say they’ve identified as Black since they were 11…

If they have at least 10 years of documentation and meet 2 of the other criteria.

The $5 million is just one of over 100 recommendations which will be voted on and approved, rejected, or changed. Personally I think that some of the other recommendations would be more transformative for individuals and the community at large rather than a single cash payout.

WellPreserved wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:54 am

BobCobbMagob wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 7:08 am

Thelma Harper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 15, 2023 2:28 am


From the OP article:

"Under San Francisco’s draft recommendation, a person must be at least 18 years old and have 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 1996 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; attending the city’s public schools before they were fully desegregated; or being a descendant of an enslaved U.S. person before 1865."

So a 22 year old with Nordic parents could be eligible as long as they say they’ve identified as Black since they were 11…

If they have at least 10 years of documentation and meet 2 of the other criteria.

The $5 million is just one of over 100 recommendations which will be voted on and approved, rejected, or changed. Personally I think that some of the other recommendations would be more transformative for individuals and the community at large rather than a single cash payout.

Those would be the 2 criteria… born in 1995 there and they have pictures of themselves in blackface at a high school party…


This is just a ridiculous moment in history…