The reparations debate is a slippery slope.
Is a modern African American living in the South statistically speaking likely to have been disadvantaged by racist policies of the past? (Setting aside whether any continue -- at least I think we can all agree any modern policies are less racist than legal slavery)
I would definitively say yes due to the deeply institutional and long-lived nature of the historical injustices.
However, what the best way to redress that through modern institutions (who did not themselves perpetrate the acts) or modern taxpayers (")?
Do you pick an "average life" and do what is necessary to give it to any current African Americans below that threshold? What about those who, through luck or toil, lifted themselves (and their children) above that threshold? What about modern day whites that such beneficence injures? And what then of modern day whites under such a threshold?
It seems like there are a million edge cases in trying to hold future versions of previously unjust groups/institutions to account, given only an ability to take from and give to modern descendants of same.
Imho, if we want to move to a more just world then we must seek to alleviate human suffering and facilitate human aspiration. Differentiating based on the race of the human in question only exacerbates past racism (even if for good reasons).
... And if the recipients of such aid tend to be disproportionately of a certain sub-group because of past injustices, then all the better.
PS: Fwiw, as someone who's lived in Atlanta for a substantial amount of time, the current geo/racial distribution of the city is more determined by income than race. You're just as likely to have an affluent African-American resident laugh at the though of moving to English Avenue as you would a white one. Unfortunately, as noted in previous comments, the income distribution is still racially inequal due to past injustices (but at least more flexible).