How sketchy and pervasive is your city's visible transient/drug addict situation?

[giallo]

^ Having Strathcona Park back is awesome. It's an amazing city park with so much to offer. I was just there at the Creative Arts Festival last Saturday, and it was nice seeing so many kids running around. That was not possible three years ago.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by giallo

^ Having Strathcona Park back is awesome. It's an amazing city park with so much to offer. I was just there at the Creative Arts Festival last Saturday, and it was nice seeing so many kids running around. That was not possible three years ago.

We had rented an industrial building on Raymur for the project, right across the park, and I wanted to be as close as possible so I rented something on the north side of Prior across the park too (shitty and overpriced, but proximity was my #1 factor, and it was the closest I found). My "commute" to our little factory was crossing the NE part of the park on foot.

The park was empty at first (March 2020) but then later that year the City expelled the people who were in Oppenheimer Park and they pretty much all moved to Strathcona, which became instantly full of tents. For the rest of my time in Vancouver, the park was unusable. Glad to see it's back to normal now

[bdurk]

As a native Philadelphian, the insight on the last page into tranq was very interesting to read about. Of course I've heard rumors about it but some real info was interesting to read about. I have noticed over time that drug user's sores seem to be getting worse and worse. I've seen multiple people with huge open wounds that look like something out of a war movie, it's horrifying. I've also seen videos of people's limbs just straight up falling off in Kensington. As for the actual drug problem here, obviously it's fairly visible, but not as bad as people think IMO. Kensington is actually nice in some parts and definitely turning around. I think Mayor Parker has a decent approach to the problem. She gets lots of criticism on her position on forced treatment. In my opinion, I honestly don't think it's that bad. Most of these people will probably never seek the treatment that they need. It's unfair to the families in Kensington who have these addicts come in from the suburbs and abuse their area and make it into a dump. I think that forced treatment may be the way to go after we see where the last decade of relaxed policies have gotten us. I am not super knowledgeable on the matter however, and would love to hear other people's opinions or examples where it has either worked or failed.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by bdurk

As a native Philadelphian, the insight on the last page into tranq was very interesting to read about. Of course I've heard rumors about it but some real info was interesting to read about. I have noticed over time that drug user's sores seem to be getting worse and worse. I've seen multiple people with huge open wounds that look like something out of a war movie, it's horrifying. I've also seen videos of people's limbs just straight up falling off in Kensington. As for the actual drug problem here, obviously it's fairly visible, but not as bad as people think IMO. Kensington is actually nice in some parts and definitely turning around. I think Mayor Parker has a decent approach to the problem. She gets lots of criticism on her position on forced treatment. In my opinion, I honestly don't think it's that bad. Most of these people will probably never seek the treatment that they need. It's unfair to the families in Kensington who have these addicts come in from the suburbs and abuse their area and make it into a dump. I think that forced treatment may be the way to go after we see where the last decade of relaxed policies have gotten us. I am not super knowledgeable on the matter however, and would love to hear other people's opinions or examples where it has either worked or failed.

Those wounds/sores if not caught early are basically untreatable/really hard to treat. The only real treatment if you have them past a certain point is removal of all of that tissue (up to the bone) or limb amputation, otherwise it slowly leads to sepsis and death. All those people you see with big open xylazine wounds are probably terminal, they have massive internal infection going on. The tissue you visibly see on the surface is necrotic, already dead. Those sores ooze smelly yellow puss, a combination of bacteria and your own internal tissue coming out (as most of the damage is actually happening internally, under the first layers of skin).
The only reason you don't see a lot more people on it, is because unlike heroin and cocaine, which you can technically do for decades, tranq kills you relatively fast. That first wave of pre-COVID tranq users, early adopters so to speak, is pretty much already dead. That is why you see drug death rates spike, its not the current users that are dying (unless OD), its mostly people who have been doing it for a few years. The human body is fairly resilient, and a lot of these tranq users get medical treatment for these wounds (cleaning and bandaging, etc), which prolongs the process and they take years to rot/die.
I personally think the tranq (xylazine+ fentanyl) epidemic will not last for decades (I think stuff like meth will outlast it), simply because the mortality rate is crazy high. I think these people will burn out in about a decade or two at most.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Those wounds/sores if not caught early are basically untreatable/really hard to treat. The only real treatment if you have them past a certain point is removal of all of that tissue (up to the bone) or limb amputation, otherwise it slowly leads to sepsis and death.

Speaking of the bolded, xylazine can lead to limb amputation for another reason as well: The fact that a xylazine high lasts about six hours. If you pass out in such a way that you're cutting off the circulation to your arm for six hours, by the time you're back on your feet your arm is more or less already dead.

I haven't seen that personally yet, but I have seen some truly terrifying xylazine necrosis wounds. We had a person come for an intake whose collarbone was visible at the bottom of a huge oozing wound. We have another patient whose lower legs look like something from The Walking Dead.

[Steely Dan]

I saw a new (to me) zombie this morning as I was coming outta the Dunkin by my office. A shuffling dude hanging out by the exit with a big gnarly open festering wound on his head that stretched from his scalp down across the left side of his forehead all the way to his cheek.

Truly some scary-ass zombie looking shit. It's kinda hard to believe that people actually do this to themselves.

He wasn't fully tranq'ed out, though, cuz he was trying to ask passersby for money.

[ilcapo]

Would you say that the homeless and/or drugaddicts roaming the streets of lets say Skid Row or Kensington reflects the demography of the city fairly well?

One thing that struck me after doing some self research of Kensington was the lack of asian-americans in these camps. By the look of it theres a somewhat even mix of white/black/latino.

[Steely Dan]

^ Speaking very anecdotally from a Chicago perspective, I'd break down the macro demographics of our "street people" population (I'm not including the recent and massive influx of mainly south and central American migrants here) relative to our overall population like this:

Blacks - over-represented
Whites - about what you'd expect
Latinos - under-represented
Asians - can't recall ever seeing an Asian street person here


But keep in mind that Asians only make up about 7.5% of Chicago's population, so that group starts out pretty damn small relative to the other big three, who are all roughly 30% each.

[chimpskibot]

Originally Posted by ilcapo

Would you say that the homeless and/or drugaddicts roaming the streets of lets say Skid Row or Kensington reflects the demography of the city fairly well?

One thing that struck me after doing some self research of Kensington was the lack of asian-americans in these camps. By the look of it theres a somewhat even mix of white/black/latino.

I travel through Kensington weekly on the el for work in NE Philly and the demographics in Kensington are more reflective of the suburbs than the city itself. There are way more white males maybe 2:1 than black males, very few women and usually mainly white women with a very low population of Hispanic and Asian men. There are almost no Hispanic or Asian women I see on the el or walking about front street/kensingto/Frankford Ave.

To me this makes sense. For a long time Opiods, not heroin, was common in suburban communities. There are still a lot of people that got hooked on prescription pills and then moved to heroin and now fentanyl/xylazine who are still using. I will also note most of the addicts I see are 30+, I find it rare to see younger users living on the streets although I’m sure they exist, they are a minority.

On the front of the wounds, it’s bad. The overdoses were bad, but lately I haven’t seen so many of those. I have notice an uptick of amputees almost in every neighborhood. Even individuals without visible track marks are becoming amputees. About a month ago I saw a man who could barely close his hand due to the necrosis on the tips of his fingers. There is also a gentleman who regularly panhandles on the subway and he has gone from being fairly mobile to walking with a cane as a result of what appears to be an infection within his leg. This happened within a month.

[bdurk]

Originally Posted by ilcapo

Would you say that the homeless and/or drugaddicts roaming the streets of lets say Skid Row or Kensington reflects the demography of the city fairly well?

One thing that struck me after doing some self research of Kensington was the lack of asian-americans in these camps. By the look of it theres a somewhat even mix of white/black/latino.

Good question that I've honestly never thought about. I would say the addicts I see roaming Kensington are actually fairly diverse which does represent Philly well. I think a lot of the people in Kensington are actually from the suburbs, at least every interview I see when people get asked where they're from it's always Philly suburbs it seems. I'm sure this isn't the case across the board but I'd say it's a lot of lower class suburbanites who unfortunately found their way down here due to addiction. Your point about Asian-Americans is interesting though as I can't think of ever seeing a single Asian-American addict. I'd say most addicts I see are an even split between black and white.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ilcapo

Would you say that the homeless and/or drugaddicts roaming the streets of lets say Skid Row or Kensington reflects the demography of the city fairly well?

One thing that struck me after doing some self research of Kensington was the lack of asian-americans in these camps. By the look of it theres a somewhat even mix of white/black/latino.

Skid row is mostly black (probaly over 60 percent) but there's white and hispanics too. Id say over all you see more black homeless and probably a tie between whites and hispanics. Id guess 50 percent black, 25 percent white and hispanic for the city.

You see very few homeless asians in LA, anywhere. There are some, but wow, its super rare. I feel like ive seen eight or ten in 10 years here.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Skid row is mostly black (probaly over 60 percent) but there's white and hispanics too. Id say over all you see more black homeless and probably a tie between whites and hispanics. Id guess 50 percent black, 25 percent white and hispanic for the city.

You see very few homeless asians in LA, anywhere. There are some, but wow, its super rare. I feel like ive seen eight or ten in 10 years here.

Vancouver has a very large Asian population, yet you don't see that many on the streets. There's definitely a small population of them in the Downtown Eastside (DTES), but it's tiny compared to the white and indigenous populations.

Of the Asian population in the DTES, most would be South Asian with the odd East Asian here and there.

[edale]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Skid row is mostly black (probaly over 60 percent) but there's white and hispanics too. Id say over all you see more black homeless and probably a tie between whites and hispanics. Id guess 50 percent black, 25 percent white and hispanic for the city.

You see very few homeless asians in LA, anywhere. There are some, but wow, its super rare. I feel like ive seen eight or ten in 10 years here.

I've seen a fair number of homeless Asians around LA. There's a homeless Asian woman who's been hanging out in my neighborhood for the past 5 years or so. I've been in my current apartment almost 8 years, and there have been the same 3-4 cast of homeless characters living here the whole time. Two white men, one black man, and one Asian woman. As far as I know, they're not addicts-- certainly not zombies with open sores as has been described in this thread and what you'd see around Skid Row. Kind of interesting how long they've been around and are basically just part of the neighborhood fabric. They don't cause any issues. The city opened a shelter about a 1.5 miles away from my place, and you will see a fair number of homeless people of all types walking toward it in the evening and away from it in the mornings. Those people who are just passing through are the ones who cause the majority of the trouble-- making a mess near trashcans, yelling, etc.

[homebucket]

There are some Asian homeless here too but relative general population very low.

Old data but gives you a rough idea of the demographic breakdown. Would be interesting to see if others on here can back up their anecdotes with data as well.

Of the estimated 7,754 homeless people in the city, around 1,100 are under 18, and about 600 are veterans, according to the 2022 Point-in-Time Count. Around 35% of them have been homeless for at least a year or have repeatedly found themselves without housing.

Black people—who are only 6% of the city’s population—account for a disproportionate 38% of unhoused people. By contrast, white people make up more than half of the general population but are only 43% of the city’s homeless population. Asian people account for 37% of San Francisco residents but are only 6% of homeless people. In a separate question on ethnicity, the survey found that nearly a third of homeless San Franciscans identified as Hispanic or Latino.

Most of the homeless population is male—62%—while 34% is female, 3% is transgender and 1% is gender nonconforming.

https://sfstandard.com/2023/06/06/sa...-demographics/

[JManc]

The only time I've ever seen homeless Asians was in San Francisco. Don't think I recall seeing any in any other part of the Bay including Oakland.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by homebucket

There are some Asian homeless here too but relative general population very low.

Old data but gives you a rough idea of the demographic breakdown. Would be interesting to see if others on here can back up their anecdotes with data as well.



https://sfstandard.com/2023/06/06/sa...-demographics/

Asians are now 37 percent of SF? Didnt know it was that high. 34 percent of homeless is female in SF too? That seems odd-LA can't be more than 20-25, if that.
Lower in my experience. Maybe 15 percent? Maybe im wrong but they aren't as visible anyway.

Maybe Koreatown or Chinatown has more asian homeless, i can see that.

[sopas ej]

I've seen some Asian homeless in the San Gabriel Valley, mainly in Rosemead. Some really mentally ill ones, too. But they're not too common. The non-Asian homeless outnumber the Asian ones.

[Acajack]

In my part of the world, in the neighbouring city of Ottawa, the homeless population is roughly half and half between Indigenous and Euro-descended people, with just a smattering of Asian and Black people. Note that Indigenous people make up only 1% of Ottawa's population.

Over the river here in Gatineau, the homeless population appears to be primarily French Canadian.

Down the road in Montreal, the homeless population, while not exclusively English-speaking, is disproportionately anglophone compared to the demographics of the city. There also, a significant proportion is Indigenous (especially Inuit people from the far north), well above their demographic share of the wider population.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ilcapo

Would you say that the homeless and/or drugaddicts roaming the streets of lets say Skid Row or Kensington reflects the demography of the city fairly well?

One thing that struck me after doing some self research of Kensington was the lack of asian-americans in these camps. By the look of it theres a somewhat even mix of white/black/latino.

I've been to the Nordic countries but it was a while ago so the situation may have changed (as it has dramatically in Canada). But back then I noticed few homeless and addicted people on the streets. If so, what are the general demographics?

Also, what is the socio-economic situation of the region's Indigenous population, the Sami? (I don't get the impression that it is as catastrophic as it is for new world Indigenous people.)

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Also, what is the socio-economic situation of the region's Indigenous population, the Sami? (I don't get the impression that it is as catastrophic as it is for new world Indigenous people.)

In Copenhagen, you see Inuit from Greenland on the street. I have never seen anything similar with Sami.

I would hesitate to analogize the Sami to the First Nations insofar as using "indigenous" in this sense implies a history of colonization similar to the European settlement of the Americas.

The Sami migration into Lapland etc. was a late Bronze Age phenomenon. The Indo-European ancestors of today's ethnic Swedes were already here. Without in any way wishing to diminish the importance of the Sami presence on their lands, it is nevertheless accurate to say that the Nordic peoples are indigenous to Scandinavia.