CA Reparations Task Force

[Politesse]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Maybe you should have considered that when planning your move. A city does not get off scot free of any charge, just because it has some new residents that moved in since they committed the crime.

 

[TSwizzle]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Maybe you should have considered that when planning your move.

Maybe the residents of California/SF should have considered that before voting for the clowns that come up with this shit.

A city does not get off scot free of any charge, just because it has some new residents that moved in since they committed the crime.

The city doesn't pay.

 

[laughing dog]

The elected officials of San Francisco are contemplating a reparations policy. Apparently it will be funded by the city of San Francisco. Those who oppose this policy can either work through the democratic process by lobbying those officials or working to have them removed. Or, they can avoid any anticipated burden by leaving the city.

This is a very local issue with wider implications. Perhaps it will be a model for other regions to deal with this issue, regardless of how it plays out.

I do find fascinating that resistance to reparations that is based on the argument "it's not fair because we had nothing to do with it". Perhaps that is true. Perhaps it is even true that "we" did not gain any indirect benefit. But it is true that it was not fair to the victims or their direct descendants either. It is routine for taxpayers to provide revenue for projects, fines, etc.... for which they did not individually or perhaps collectively condone or benefit from. So why the hackles over reparations for a criminal act?

BTW, as a historical note, when slavery was ended in France (and its possessions) and Great Britain, reparations were paid - to the former slave owners. The freed slaves got nothing. In fact, in the French possessions, vagrancy laws were quickly enacted that allowed local officials to arrest former slaves and put them to work. In the US, former slaves were promised "40 acres and a mule" - a promise that was never fulfilled.

 

[Politesse]

Those who oppose this policy can either work through the democratic process by lobbying those officials or working to have them removed. Or, they can avoid any anticipated burden by leaving the city.

No need for that even. As with the recent Stanford IT department case, this is a situation where the right wing media is going absolutely bananas because someone is making a recommendation, even though the likelihood of that recommendation being followed to the letter is almost non-existent.

 

[laughing dog]

Those who oppose this policy can either work through the democratic process by lobbying those officials or working to have them removed. Or, they can avoid any anticipated burden by leaving the city.

No need for that even. As with the recent Stanford IT department case, this is a situation where the right wing media is going absolutely bananas because someone is making a recommendation, even though the likelihood of that recommendation being followed to the letter is almost non-existent.

I was trying to reassure them because you know how easily they become deranged.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Those who oppose this policy can either work through the democratic process by lobbying those officials or working to have them removed. Or, they can avoid any anticipated burden by leaving the city.

No need for that even. As with the recent Stanford IT department case, this is a situation where the right wing media is going absolutely bananas because someone is making a recommendation, even though the likelihood of that recommendation being followed to the letter is almost non-existent.

Agree with you. But this is political gold for the right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those who oppose this policy can either work through the democratic process by lobbying those officials or working to have them removed. Or, they can avoid any anticipated burden by leaving the city.

No need for that even. As with the recent Stanford IT department case, this is a situation where the right wing media is going absolutely bananas because someone is making a recommendation, even though the likelihood of that recommendation being followed to the letter is almost non-existent.

Agree with you. But this is political gold for the right.

Everything is political gold for the right-wing. CRT? Doesn't exist in public school... political gold though for the right-wing. Transgender people exist. Political gold for the right-wing. Stolen election that wasn't stolen. Political gold for the right (and quite literally).

Effectively, the right-wing will say ANY attempt to deal with the last 150 years of intentional fraud, theft, destruction, murder, conspiracy will be unfair to those of us that didn't do it. That is a bullshit argument, but it is simple, and easy to say. So... political gold for the right. And lets just go down the road? I wasn't around when that bridge was built? Those people should have to pay for replacing it, not me!

 

[Politesse]

Those who oppose this policy can either work through the democratic process by lobbying those officials or working to have them removed. Or, they can avoid any anticipated burden by leaving the city.

No need for that even. As with the recent Stanford IT department case, this is a situation where the right wing media is going absolutely bananas because someone is making a recommendation, even though the likelihood of that recommendation being followed to the letter is almost non-existent.

Agree with you. But this is political gold for the right.

I guess so. But, I do not think either the city or the committee itself are in the wrong here. The civic government should be examining the role it played in creating many of Fog City's present crises of social inequality, and organizing a committee to do that work makes sense. And for that committee, their job is to determine what would be fair, reasonable, and effective, not what would be politically expedient. They know perfectly well (I assume) their advisement won't be honored at face value, but making the inevitable compromises an angry public will demand is not their job. The only fault I see here is in sensationalistic headlines meant to scare white people into believing that all their Black neighbors are about to get an "unfair" windfall for their skin color, which will bankrupt the city.

I think it's also unfortunate that this is happening at the same time as a California statewide project to consider reparations for slavery, a very different issue that people are clearly confusing and conflating.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Do you also think that the Catholic church shouldn't pay victims of pedophile priests? Because you know...many Catholics footing the bill weren't going to the church when it happened and some of the church goers weren't directly involved in hushing the crimes? What about class action suits against corporations? Not everyone in the company participates in every crime. Do you always deny victims reparations from large entities or is it just African American reparations that gives you angst?

 

[Oleg]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Do you also think that the Catholic church shouldn't pay victims of pedophile priests? Because you know...many Catholics footing the bill weren't going to the church when it happened and some of the church goers weren't directly involved in hushing the crimes? What about class action suits against corporations? Not everyone in the company participates in every crime. Do you always deny victims reparations from large entities or is it just African American reparations that gives you angst?

This is a lousy comparison. The Church paid out to people who were actually abused. The SF proposal assume that all people of a certain skin hue had the same experience. That’s kinda racist.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Do you also think that the Catholic church shouldn't pay victims of pedophile priests? Because you know...many Catholics footing the bill weren't going to the church when it happened and some of the church goers weren't directly involved in hushing the crimes? What about class action suits against corporations? Not everyone in the company participates in every crime. Do you always deny victims reparations from large entities or is it just African American reparations that gives you angst?

This is a lousy comparison. The Church paid out to people who were actually abused. The SF proposal assume that all people of a certain skin hue had the same experience. That’s kinda racist.

That's not the only criterion, though, and having a litany of criteria to create categories is common in class action suits--the thing you are saying is a bad comparison.

 

[Oleg]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Do you also think that the Catholic church shouldn't pay victims of pedophile priests? Because you know...many Catholics footing the bill weren't going to the church when it happened and some of the church goers weren't directly involved in hushing the crimes? What about class action suits against corporations? Not everyone in the company participates in every crime. Do you always deny victims reparations from large entities or is it just African American reparations that gives you angst?

This is a lousy comparison. The Church paid out to people who were actually abused. The SF proposal assume that all people of a certain skin hue had the same experience. That’s kinda racist.

That's not the only criterion, though, and having a litany of criteria to create categories is common in class action suits--the thing you are saying is a bad comparison.

But the claimants in a class action lawsuit must prove they were harmed. The point of a class action lawsuit is that there’s so many claimants that for judicial economy their claims are merged. Sometimes a court will deny class action certification and claimants left to litigate their claims individually. Not a good comparison here.

 

[Politesse]

The SF proposal assume that all people of a certain skin hue had the same experience.

No. The expected proposal will be to compensate people directly affected by civic policies that discriminated against Black people.

 

[Oleg]

The SF proposal assume that all people of a certain skin hue had the same experience.

No. The expected proposal will be to compensate people directly affected by civic policies that discriminated against Black people.

"Black people." Which one?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Do you also think that the Catholic church shouldn't pay victims of pedophile priests? Because you know...many Catholics footing the bill weren't going to the church when it happened and some of the church goers weren't directly involved in hushing the crimes? What about class action suits against corporations? Not everyone in the company participates in every crime. Do you always deny victims reparations from large entities or is it just African American reparations that gives you angst?

This is a lousy comparison. The Church paid out to people who were actually abused. The SF proposal assume that all people of a certain skin hue had the same experience. That’s kinda racist.

That's not the only criterion, though, and having a litany of criteria to create categories is common in class action suits--the thing you are saying is a bad comparison.

But the claimants in a class action lawsuit must prove they were harmed. The point of a class action lawsuit is that there’s so many claimants that for judicial economy their claims are merged. Sometimes a court will deny class action certification and claimants left to litigate their claims individually. Not a good comparison here.

Your assumption I have bolded is false. A class action suit has properties of a collective. There are often suits where there are categories of people. Let's say a company dumped dangerous chemicals into the ground for 20 years and knew there were risks of causing cancer, diarrhea and mumps. Then, a class action suit result might ask people to prove they had those problems and then give them and their residence as well as some expected value based on probability they might have gotten those problems from the company's actions, how dangerous is the symptom, and the total amount of money available. So, some particular individual may not have gotten cancer from drinking their well water but the result of negotiating for reparations will lead to perhaps 3 categories of claimants in the suit: A--those who got diarrhea, B--those who got mumps, and C--those who got cancer. And each category of person would get some money upon agreement of the settlement.

 

[Oleg]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Do you also think that the Catholic church shouldn't pay victims of pedophile priests? Because you know...many Catholics footing the bill weren't going to the church when it happened and some of the church goers weren't directly involved in hushing the crimes? What about class action suits against corporations? Not everyone in the company participates in every crime. Do you always deny victims reparations from large entities or is it just African American reparations that gives you angst?

This is a lousy comparison. The Church paid out to people who were actually abused. The SF proposal assume that all people of a certain skin hue had the same experience. That’s kinda racist.

That's not the only criterion, though, and having a litany of criteria to create categories is common in class action suits--the thing you are saying is a bad comparison.

But the claimants in a class action lawsuit must prove they were harmed. The point of a class action lawsuit is that there’s so many claimants that for judicial economy their claims are merged. Sometimes a court will deny class action certification and claimants left to litigate their claims individually. Not a good comparison here.

Your assumption I have bolded is false. A class action suit has properties of a collective. There are often suits where there are categories of people. Let's say a company dumped dangerous chemicals into the ground for 20 years and knew there were risks of causing cancer, diarrhea and mumps. Then, a class action suit result might ask people to prove they had those problems and then give them and their residence as well as some expected value based on probability they might have gotten those problems from the company's actions, how dangerous is the symptom, and the total amount of money available. So, some particular individual may not have gotten cancer from drinking their well water but the result of negotiating for reparations will lead to perhaps 3 categories of claimants in the suit: A--those who got diarrhea, B--those who got mumps, and C--those who got cancer. And each category of person would get some money upon agreement of the settlement.

Dude, certification for a class action assumes that each member of the proposed class could bring a separate lawsuit. An example within memory is the suit against the tobacco companies. That a person was a smoker and suffered a smoking related injury/death was required to be a member of the class.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Do you also think that the Catholic church shouldn't pay victims of pedophile priests? Because you know...many Catholics footing the bill weren't going to the church when it happened and some of the church goers weren't directly involved in hushing the crimes? What about class action suits against corporations? Not everyone in the company participates in every crime. Do you always deny victims reparations from large entities or is it just African American reparations that gives you angst?

This is a lousy comparison. The Church paid out to people who were actually abused. The SF proposal assume that all people of a certain skin hue had the same experience. That’s kinda racist.

That's not the only criterion, though, and having a litany of criteria to create categories is common in class action suits--the thing you are saying is a bad comparison.

But the claimants in a class action lawsuit must prove they were harmed. The point of a class action lawsuit is that there’s so many claimants that for judicial economy their claims are merged. Sometimes a court will deny class action certification and claimants left to litigate their claims individually. Not a good comparison here.

Your assumption I have bolded is false. A class action suit has properties of a collective. There are often suits where there are categories of people. Let's say a company dumped dangerous chemicals into the ground for 20 years and knew there were risks of causing cancer, diarrhea and mumps. Then, a class action suit result might ask people to prove they had those problems and then give them and their residence as well as some expected value based on probability they might have gotten those problems from the company's actions, how dangerous is the symptom, and the total amount of money available. So, some particular individual may not have gotten cancer from drinking their well water but the result of negotiating for reparations will lead to perhaps 3 categories of claimants in the suit: A--those who got diarrhea, B--those who got mumps, and C--those who got cancer. And each category of person would get some money upon agreement of the settlement.

Dude, certification for a class action assumes that each member of the proposed class could bring a separate lawsuit. An example within memory is the suit against the tobacco companies. That a person was a smoker and suffered a smoking related injury/death was required to be a member of the class.

You are being sneaky. "smoking related injury/death" could mean emphysema, lung cancer, esophageal cancer. Your original claim was that there must be PROOF that A caused B. Instead, you are now conceding that A is related to B, i.e. A is associated with B or correlated with B. That's not PROOF, your original claim.

So, Blacks who had lived in San Francisco for a decade in some period where the shenanigans were going on (also requirements, not merely skin color) who have less than median income ($97K) (another requirement as it is a correlation of harm even though it's not proof) would get different values, i.e. income supplemented up to $97K. While of course it's not the same thing as, say, silicone breast implant women receiving money in a class action suit because they showed they had fibromyalgia or another connective tissue disease associated (very weakly correlated) with silicone breast implant leaks, it's a far cry from matching your objection that class action suits require PROOF. It's also different than TSwizzle's objection that everyone within a large entity paying out money must have somehow been involved in the harm in order for it to be fair. That's just not how it works.

 

[Oleg]

If someone sues you for something that you did, you don't get off scot free by complaining that what you owe them is "too much money". Should have thought about that when you were stealing it, not when the chickens come home to roost.

The people that are (potentially) being punished were not responsible for these past transgressions. I sure AF don't owe for it, I only moved here in the 90s!

Do you also think that the Catholic church shouldn't pay victims of pedophile priests? Because you know...many Catholics footing the bill weren't going to the church when it happened and some of the church goers weren't directly involved in hushing the crimes? What about class action suits against corporations? Not everyone in the company participates in every crime. Do you always deny victims reparations from large entities or is it just African American reparations that gives you angst?

This is a lousy comparison. The Church paid out to people who were actually abused. The SF proposal assume that all people of a certain skin hue had the same experience. That’s kinda racist.

That's not the only criterion, though, and having a litany of criteria to create categories is common in class action suits--the thing you are saying is a bad comparison.

But the claimants in a class action lawsuit must prove they were harmed. The point of a class action lawsuit is that there’s so many claimants that for judicial economy their claims are merged. Sometimes a court will deny class action certification and claimants left to litigate their claims individually. Not a good comparison here.

Your assumption I have bolded is false. A class action suit has properties of a collective. There are often suits where there are categories of people. Let's say a company dumped dangerous chemicals into the ground for 20 years and knew there were risks of causing cancer, diarrhea and mumps. Then, a class action suit result might ask people to prove they had those problems and then give them and their residence as well as some expected value based on probability they might have gotten those problems from the company's actions, how dangerous is the symptom, and the total amount of money available. So, some particular individual may not have gotten cancer from drinking their well water but the result of negotiating for reparations will lead to perhaps 3 categories of claimants in the suit: A--those who got diarrhea, B--those who got mumps, and C--those who got cancer. And each category of person would get some money upon agreement of the settlement.

Dude, certification for a class action assumes that each member of the proposed class could bring a separate lawsuit. An example within memory is the suit against the tobacco companies. That a person was a smoker and suffered a smoking related injury/death was required to be a member of the class.

You are being sneaky. "smoking related injury/death" could mean emphysema, lung cancer, esophageal cancer. Your original claim was that there must be PROOF that A caused B. Instead, you are now conceding that A is related to B, i.e. A is associated with B or correlated with B. That's not PROOF, your original claim.

So, Blacks who had lived in San Francisco for a decade in some period where the shenanigans were going on (also requirements, not merely skin color) who have less than median income ($97K) (another requirement as it is a correlation of harm even though it's not proof) would get different values, i.e. income supplemented up to $97K. While of course it's not the same thing as, say, silicone breast implant women receiving money in a class action suit because they showed they had fibromyalgia or another connective tissue disease associated (very weakly correlated) with silicone breast implant leaks, it's a far cry from matching your objection that class action suits require PROOF. It's also different than TSwizzle's objection that everyone within a large entity paying out money must have somehow been involved in the harm in order for it to be fair. That's just not how it works.

Why are you missing the point? A can sue B. Sometimes there are multiple As and Bs and the parties are joined in the same case. If the As and Bs are too numerous, you can seek a class action. It’s just a procedural mechanism. It does not obviate the need for proof of injury. Indeed, sometimes class actions are decertified and claimants pursue actions individually.

 

[TSwizzle]

San Francisco residents lined up at a city board meeting last night to share their full-throated support of a wide-eyed reparations plan that would award every black resident $5million, wipe their personal debt, guarantee $97,000 incomes for 250 years and $1 homes. But no one at the emotional meeting - where residents burst into song and begged to be made 'whole' - asked how the struggling, debt-addled city might pay for it. The proposals put forward in San Francisco last night are among some of the most generous to be heard to date.
Among the 100 recommendations were payments of $5 million to every eligible black adult, the elimination of personal debt and tax burdens, guaranteed annual incomes of at least $97,000 for 250 years and homes in San Francisco for just $1 a family. To be eligible, a person must be over 18 and 'have identified as black/African American on public documents for at least 10 years'. They also must fit two of eight criteria - among them, being born or migrated to San Francisco between 1940-96, and having 13 years of proof of residency; or being able to prove descendancy from someone enslaved before 1865. Other criteria include being 'personally, or the direct descendant of someone, incarcerated by the failed War on Drugs', or proof of being 'displaced, or the direct descendant of someone displaced, from San Francisco by Urban Renewal between 1954 and 1973.'

Daily Mail

A lot of people are going to be bitterly disappointed.

 

[Politesse]

I guess the trick is too steal so much money from your minority populations, that when they later request fair compensation for the cirme, it sounds like an unreasonable and unjustifiable expense.