SF Mayor Lurie signs off on reparations fund
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie is facing both praise and pushback after signing a measure to create a reparations fund for the city’s Black residents. Notably the fund does not include any taxpayer money for direct payouts.
SAN FRANCISCO – Mayor Daniel Lurie has signed an ordinance establishing a reparations fund for Black residents in San Francisco, a move supporters say acknowledges historic harm. Critics argue it is unnecessary, legally questionable and potentially costly, even without city funding.
Reparations for Black SF residents
The measure, which passed the Board of Supervisors unanimously on December 16, establishes a fund for reparations for Black residents who can demonstrate they experienced a proven harm in San Francisco.
Lurie signed the ordinance into law last week without a public announcement, press release or social media post.
In a statement, the mayor emphasized the city’s fiscal constraints:
“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 — with a historic $1 billion budget deficit, we are going to spend our money on making the city safer and cleaner.”
Supporters say the ordinance represents an important acknowledgment of the city’s role in historic injustices against Black residents.
What they’re saying:
“I would argue that the city is accountable for not just investing in this fund, but for supporting in all the ways possible the recommendations of our plan, including financial repair,” said Eric McDonnell, former chair of the African American Reparations Advisory Committee. “It is a step in the right direction. It by no means demonstrates or represents a full on commitment to making something happen.”
McDonnell’s committee, which concluded its work in early 2024 after a three-year term, produced a more than 400-page report in 2023 with over 100 recommendations aimed at addressing historic harms, including housing displacement, discriminatory policies and economic exclusion.
Among those recommendations was a proposal for a one-time, $5 million payment to each eligible person.
McDonnell said eligibility under the committee’s recommendations would be based on documented harm.
“I’m making this up, but if I can demonstrate that in 1972 the property my family owned was taken by eminent domain and I am therefore due repair for that, then I’d be eligible,” he said.
Lurie has said the fund is open to private donations and that if money becomes available, the city would ensure it is distributed to eligible recipients.
Some criticism
Critics, however, say the measure raises serious concerns even without direct payouts.
Conservative columnist and political commentator Richie Greenberg said the ordinance could still cost taxpayers money by requiring the city to set up a new bureaucracy and defend potential legal challenges.
“When I learned that he signed this – disillusionment, disappointment,” Greenberg said. “I had hoped that he would have said, you know, this is something that we don’t need at this point.”
Greenberg also questioned whether accepting private donations through city coffers is appropriate and warned the policy could expose the city to lawsuits.
“Even though it is true that there were injustices in the 1940s, 50s and 60s against the city’s African American population, that does not mean individual taxpayers 20, 30, 50 years later should be held responsible,” he said.
McDonnell said former members of the reparations advisory committee continue to meet informally to advocate for funding and to hold the city accountable for implementing broader recommendations outlined in the report.
San FranciscoDaniel LurieEquity and InclusionNews
