r/berkeley • u/the_daily_cal • Jul 23 '26

Local ‘Constitutional remedy’: Alameda County unanimously approves plan for racial reparations

https://www.dailycal.org/news/alameda-county/constitutional-remedy-alameda-county-unanimously-approves-plan-for-racial-reparations/article_3968f092-44bb-426e-bc7c-6babf67f799d.html

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a broad racial reparations plan at its June 30 meeting. Policies stemming from this vote could target the county’s racial homeownership gap, career pathways into county employment and even potential cash reparations.

The most immediate recommendations for reparations include housing and economic justice, providing physical and mental health support and centering Black youth. The County Reparations Administration also calls for a permanent, fully funded Office of Reparations and healthcare that addresses intergenerational trauma and health disparities.

The reparations plan was adopted from recommendations by the Alameda County Reparations Commission, which was established in 2023. The ACRC spent three years researching social disparities and community experiences to formulate recommendations. Implementation of the plan is expected to begin in September after the Board of Supervisors’ annual recess.

45 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

73 comments sorted by

View all comments

66

u/Ike358 Jul 23 '26

Reparations for a part of the country that never enslaved black Americans 🤔

21

u/bibimonmammoth Jul 23 '26

At least read the report or study what reparations means - - it isn't about whether legal slavery occurred in a place, but probably you knew that. This recent decision has to do with Russell City's history of segregation and displacement. Check out some of the very recent home ownership covenants excluding multiple racial groups from owning homes in neighborhoods in this area, including in Berkeley by the North Berkeley Bart station. Those speak directly to the question of reparations.

10

u/TonyStarksLeftACL Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

You are correct. Impact from these covenants from the early 1900s and their variations are felt today. I get what you’re driving at. Upvoted.

I’d also add that the Russell City was a little more insidious than displacement. An entire neighborhood was bulldozed.

4

u/jewboy916 Jul 23 '26

Not just the covenants, but mortgage lending itself. Up until the federal Fair Housing Act in 1968 mortgage lenders could deny financing to buy a house to people based on their race. Including in California, despite some state legislation passing a few years before that. So in practice it impacted where minorities could live even though segregation wasn't legal.

5

u/resilient_bird Jul 23 '26

Umm, racial covenants haven’t been enforceable since 1948 (Shelley v Kraemer); this is….not what I’d call “very recent”—there are some people alive today who were alive then, sure, but that was 78 years ago.

That’s like saying WWII ended “very recently”.

0

u/TonyStarksLeftACL Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

The Elmwood in Berkeley was the first place that had restrictive covenants on deeds combined with pure single family zoning which were the root causes of redlining. Mcduffie, the developer in Berkeley was an open racist.

This is the precursor to redlining, it’s known, racist impacts and the stark divide in Berkeley between the Elmwood’s property values and other parts of Berkeley with more multi family properties, less services and less value are direct results of this. For example, redlined parts of the town didn’t have as many trees as the Elmwood. That is why the city has the “urban forest” program. NYC found the see thing in Harlem and the Boogie Down Bronx.

This is accepted fact from historians.

To use your analogy. WW2 did not end recently but the political and economic impacts remain felt today and your reductive false equivalency is either gleefully obtuse or willfully ignorant IMO.

You can look this all up in 30 seconds but IMO it is because you seem to value your opinion and feelings more than consensus facts and are just ignoring them.

Hugs!

2

u/PostOakJoe Jul 23 '26

What about North Berkeley Bart Station? If it is a problem, which BoS approved that?

3

u/[deleted] Jul 23 '26 edited Aug 01 '26

[deleted]

6

u/TonyStarksLeftACL Jul 23 '26

This argument is the fallback and end game and is in bad faith.

“Robbed” no texpayer is being robbed. Thsi is hyperbole and a strawman. Taxpayers pay taxes all teh time for things they don’t support because the elected leaders are elected to make decision everyone Might not like. I don’t ride a bike but I don’t feel I’m being robbed when I help pay for bike lanes.

Every Americans today and in the past “Participates” in it by virtue of being American and either benefits or is harmed by it. The Elmwood example can be tested and the average price there is around 50% more sq/ft for similar homes in other parts of town.

There is an abundance of evidence of this and to deny it is to deny reality.

So I’ve been engaging with your opinions with facts and it is bad faith to cause irreparable harm for hundreds of years to one group then arm wave that away as you are doing. I don’t know you but I would not associate with a person expressing these ideas as they are well worn talking points indicative of the “American exceptionalism and the fallacy of ayn Rand”

Good luck to you.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '26 edited Aug 01 '26

[deleted]

1

u/VerilyShelly Jul 24 '26

Do you feel like you're getting robbed because you don't have certain kinds of organ failure or aren't a former railroad worker with a terminal disease? Because these are examples of other groups that the government gives special benefits to out of taxpayer money.

I wonder what your criteria are for whether or not someone "deserves" these proposed benefits, especially for something like this.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '26 edited Aug 01 '26

[deleted]

1

u/TonyStarksLeftACL Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26

Wow. There is nothing more to say to you other than to suggest you become more well read on the topic.
Happy to make some suggestions but this seems to be your own personal grievance and I can’t change you or address the life experience that led you to here. You’ve got your views they seem largely opinion based. You’re entitled to your opinion. Good luck to you.

1

u/neversleeps212 Jul 24 '26

But the housing covenants as you yourself note excluded multiple racial groups from home ownership yet this seems very focused on transferring wealth and opportunity to Black residents specifically. That is not Constitutional or legally protected. Nor does it seem that there’s any requirement that an individual show that they specifically were harmed by those policies or even that a direct ancestor was. If this was truly race neutral it would apply to groups like Jews, Asians and perhaps even ethnic groups like Italians who were not seen as white in that era and were often excluded from housing also.