San Francisco residents band together to shut down city's 'race-based' Reparations Fund with lawsuit
Richie Greenberg, one of the plaintiffs suing the City of San Francisco over its Reparations Fund, claimed that the measure is divisive as it solely favors Black residents.
Evanston, Illinois, made history in 2021 by enacting the country’s first race-based reparations plan for past housing discrimination against Black residents. Since the program began, the city has issued about 40 payments each year to qualified residents. Last year**, the city issued** 45. This time around, the number is 44, for a total of about $4 million. Yet regardless of how many checks Evanston sends out, the effect will be, at best, merely symbolic. At worst, it is muddled, confused and likely illegal.
This year, Evanston will send $25,000 payments to 44 Black residents and descendants of Black residents who lived in the city between 1919 and 1969. The program, funded primarily through a city real estate transfer tax, is intended to address the legacy of housing discrimination in Evanston — a city that, like much of the nation, enforced restrictive covenants and other barriers that prevented Black residents from buying homes. While rooted in a desire to correct past wrongs, the plan raises significant constitutional, practical and moral concerns.
At its core, the Evanston program is race-specific, providing benefits solely to Black residents who meet narrow historical criteria. This raises an obvious legal question: Can the government dole out money based on race? Critics have already flagged the program as constitutionally questionable under the Equal ProtectionEqual Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Beyond legality, there is a broader question about fairness. The program compensates some individuals while excluding others who may face equal or even greater financial need. Wealthier Black residents in Evanston receive the same payments as those struggling economically, while low-income residents of other races receive nothing. Isn’t a poor White person more in need of that money?
ILLINOIS CITY HANDS OUT $25K CASH PAYMENTS TO 44 BLACK RESIDENTS THROUGH REPARATIONS PROGRAM
The structure of the program is also confused. While Evanston’s payments are framed around historical housing discrimination between 1919 and 1969, this period does not capture the full scope of systemic racial inequities. Restrictive housing practices existed both before and after that window. Yet the city has drawn an arbitrary line, oversimplifying a complex history into a single snapshot. It may be administratively convenient, but it’s not exactly thoughtful.
A $25,000 payment may provide temporary relief for some recipients, but investments in education, financial literacy and other community-building initiatives could provide more long-term benefits. These types of investments would be better than offering short-term individual relief.
None of this is to say that reparations programs are inherently bad. The government has previously compensated groups who suffered identifiable, direct injustices — Japanese Americans interned during World War II, for example.
By contrast, the Evanston payouts go to those who were merely living in the city during the time discrimination took place, without regard to whether they personally suffered from it. And while past discrimination may have created obstacles to wealth accumulation, evidence also shows that many Black Americans have achieved upward mobility through their own efforts. The fact that 80 percent of Black Americans are middle class or higher weakens that point substantially. And what does it mean that Black Americans like my parents accomplished upward mobility without such help?
Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against Evanston, Illinois,' reparations program, due to its use of race as an eligibility requirement for the program. The program issues $25,000 direct cash payments to Black residents and descendants of Black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969. Evanston was the first city in the nation to pass a reparations plan, pledging $10 million over a decade to Black residents. (Getty Images)
What about the fact that being given equal opportunity — not simply a cash handout — was all they needed to give themselves and their children a better life?
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
A $25,000 payment may provide temporary relief for some recipients, but investments in education, financial literacy and other community-building initiatives could provide more long-term benefits. These types of investments would be better than offering short-term individual relief.
From a moral standpoint, too, the idea of placing a monetary value on past suffering is inherently insulting. No sum of money can undo decades of harm caused by segregation. Reparations, when narrowly tailored as cash payments, appear performative. This reparations program, and the idea of reparations in general, ignores the realities of contemporary America, where socioeconomic status — regardless of race — is the more salient issue.
Ultimately, the Evanston reparations program highlights a tension between historical justice and practical policy. On one hand, it is an earnest attempt to confront the city’s past.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
On the other hand, its design — race-specific, administratively narrow and cash-focused — raises legal, moral and strategic concerns. A more comprehensive approach might focus on opportunity rather than compensation, addressing systemic inequities with policies that expand access to quality education, affordable housing and economic development. By investing in structures that empower communities over the long term, cities can confront historical injustices in ways that are more equitable, sustainable and legally defensible.
Evanston’s reparations program may be a heartfelt gesture, but it is a misguided idea built on racial essentialism — the idea that all Black people are the same — a waste of resources because the money could be put to better use, and certainly morally questionable. The individual payees may be happier, but the long-term effects of this program may do more harm than good.
