$223,200 / person

Dog 2.0

Super Anarchist
3,118
490

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
8,112
1,352
Well, they at least have a number. They can go through the normal legislative process now and if the majority think its a good idea, push through the payments. Yea, democracy!

Some of it is going to be a way to plow more money into the higher education system - the article aludes to that - which is usually popular amongst politicians so that'll be a selling point.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,836
2,003
Punta Gorda FL
That's how much California's reparations committee has determined the state should pay each black person in the state. That comes to $569 billion, more the state total expenditures last year. And California was not even a slave state, so reparations are based primarily on housing discrimination.

Next up, Asians, Jews, Native Americans, Hispanics....

California Reparations Committee Recommends $223,200 to Descendants of Slaves - Sacramentotime.com

They did name other causes:

The task force identified four other causes of compensation: mass incarceration, unjust confiscation of assets, devaluation of black business and health care.

And the "unjust confiscation of assets" category seems to me to include at least a couple of flavors. Drug war looting is probably the one they mean, but the other can also be called, well, housing discrimination.

...
One example of housing discrimination the task force looked at is Russell City, a town that once existed near the San Francisco shoreline and sheltered black families fleeing violence in the Deep South.


People who lived in Russell City, which has since been bulldozed, told the task force that the area had been replaced by an industrial park and the residents had been evicted.


One former resident, Monique Henderson-Ford, told the Times she was paid $2,200 for the home — less than a third of what she bought it for.


“Imagine if the houses were still here,” she said. “We would all be sitting on a fortune.”
...

Sounds like an eminent domain buyback similar to the one at Bruce's Beach.

Bruce’s Beach can return to descendants of Black family in landmark move signed by Newsom

I still think that Justice Thomas was right when he said this

Those incentives have made the legacy of this Court’s “public purpose” test an unhappy one. In the 1950’s, no doubt emboldened in part by the expansive understanding of “public use” this Court adopted in Berman, cities “rushed to draw plans” for downtown development. B. Frieden & L. Sagalayn, Downtown, Inc. How America Rebuilds Cities 17 (1989). “Of all the families displaced by urban renewal from 1949 through 1963, 63 percent of those whose race was known were nonwhite, and of these families, 56 percent of nonwhites and 38 percent of whites had incomes low enough to qualify for public housing, which, however, was seldom available to them.” Id., at 28. Public works projects in the 1950’s and 1960’s destroyed predominantly minority communities in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. Id., at 28—29. In 1981, urban planners in Detroit, Michigan, uprooted the largely “lower-income and elderly” Poletown neighborhood for the benefit of the General Motors Corporation. J. Wylie, Poletown: Community Betrayed 58 (1989). Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; “n cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as ‘Negro removal.’ ” Pritchett, The “Public Menace” of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain, 21 Yale L. & Pol’y Rev. 1, 47 (2003). Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the “slum-clearance” project upheld by this Court in Berman were black. 348 U.S., at 30. Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court’s decision will be to exacerbate these effects.
 

Grrr...

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ 100%
10,258
2,674
Detroit
They did name other causes:



And the "unjust confiscation of assets" category seems to me to include at least a couple of flavors. Drug war looting is probably the one they mean, but the other can also be called, well, housing discrimination.



Sounds like an eminent domain buyback similar to the one at Bruce's Beach.

Bruce’s Beach can return to descendants of Black family in landmark move signed by Newsom

I still think that Justice Thomas was right when he said this

Don't contradict Dog. He's rolling.

 

Dog 2.0

Super Anarchist
3,118
490

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,836
2,003
Punta Gorda FL
Don't contradict Dog. He's rolling.
Didn't think I was contradicting. Just expanding a bit on what "housing discrimination" means. Justice Thomas was right: it has frequently meant eminent domain buybacks for the public purpose of negro removal. He was also right that this was and is wrong.

He was also alone in dissent, unfortunately.
 




Top