text:
Single-room occupancy

Single-room occupancy (SRO) is a type of low-cost housing typically aimed at residents with low or minimal incomes, or single adults who like a minimalist lifestyle, who rent small, furnished single rooms with a bed, chair, and sometimes a small desk. SRO units are rented out as permanent residence and/or primary residence to individuals, within a multi-tenant building where tenants share a kitchen, toilets or bathrooms. SRO units range from 80 to 140 ft2. In some instances, contemporary units may have a small refrigerator, microwave, or sink.

SROs are a form of affordable housing, in some cases for formerly or otherwise homeless individuals. SRO units are the least expensive form of non-subsidized rental housing, with median rents even in New York City ranging from $450 to $705 per month in 2013. The term is primarily used in Canada and US. Since the 1970s and 1980s, there has been an increasing displacement of SRO units aimed at low-income earners in a process of gentrification, with SRO facilities being sold and turned into condominiums. Between 1955 and 2013, almost one million SRO units were eliminated in the US by regulation, conversion or demolition.

The term SRO refers to the fact that the tenant rents a single room, as opposed to a full flat (apartment). While roommates informally sharing an apartment may also have a bedroom and share a bathroom and kitchen, an SRO tenant leases the SRO unit individually. SRO units may be provided in a rooming house, apartment building, or in illegal conversions of private homes into many small SRO rooms. There is a variety of levels of quality, ranging from a "cubicle with a wire mesh ceiling", at the lowest end, to small hotel rooms or small studio apartments without bathrooms, at the higher end. They may also be referred to as "SRO hotels", which acknowledges that many of the buildings are old hotels that are in a poor state of repair and maintenance. The initialism SRO has also been stated to mean "single resident only". Or sarcastically "Standing Room Only". The terms "residential hotel" or "efficiency unit" are also used to refer to some SROs.

History
The term originated in New York City, probably in the 1930s (the Oxford English Dictionary provides an earliest citation of 1941), but such accommodations predate the nickname by at least fifty years. SROs exist in many American cities, and are most common in larger cities. In many cases, the buildings themselves were formerly hotels in or near a city's central business district, typically built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Theodore Dreiser described early SRO hotels in his 1900 "naturist novel of urban life" Sister Carrie.

By the 1880s, urban reformers began working on modernizing cities; their efforts to create "uniformity within areas, less mixture of social classes, maximum privacy for each family, much lower density for many activities, buildings set back from the street, and a permanently built order" all meant that SRO hotels had to be cut back. By the 1890s, SRO hotels became "forbidden housing; their residents, forbidden citizens." New York City police inspector Thomas Byrnes stated that rather than give SRO hotels "palliative" care, they should be dealt with using a "knife, the blister, the amputating instruments."

Reformers used moral codes, building codes, fire codes, zoning, planning committees and inspections to limit or remove SRO hotels. An example of moral critiques is Simon Lubin's claims that "unregulated hotels" were "spreading venereal diseases among the soldiers". Other reformers tried to ban men and boys from rooming in the same hotels, due to concerns about homosexuality. The building and safety codes criticized SRO hotel problems such as "firetraps, dark rooms, inadequate plumbing, an insufficient ventilation." In San Francisco, building code inspections and restrictions were often used to racially harass Chinese laborers and the places they lived.

In 1917, California passed a new hotel act that prevented the building of new hotels with small cubicle rooms. In addition to banning or restricting SRO hotels, land use reformers also passed zoning rules that indirectly reduced SROs: banning mixed residential and commercial use in neighbourhoods, an approach which meant that any remaining SRO hotel's residents would find it hard to eat at a local cafe or walk to a nearby corner grocery to buy food. Non-residential uses such as religious institutions (churches) and professional offices (doctors, lawyers) were still permitted under these new zoning rules, but working-class people (plumbers, mechanics) were not allowed to operate businesses such as garages or plumbing businesses.

The United States saw a decrease in single-room occupancy housing during the period of 1960s and 1970s urban decay. For example, in Chicago 81% of the SRO housing stock disappeared between 1960 and 1980. Since the early 1970s, the supply of SRO spaces did not meet the demand in US cities. In 1970, newspapers in the US wrote about an "SRO [supply] crisis". Downtown SRO hotels offer few and possibly no rooms to rent to tourists. Indeed, since the end of WWII, the inexpensive hotels that became SROs were lost and not replaced, with the losses coming from conversion to office space, demolition, or upgrading to tourist rental. For example, in San Francisco from 1975 and 1980, 6,085 SRO rooms were lost; in Chicago, from 1973 and 1984, more than 23,000 SRO units were lost. Some viewed the removal of SRO hotels as a good thing, as it meant the "removal of substandard housing and unwanted neighbors" and their "public nuisance"; on the other hand, it was also viewed as causing more homelessness.

Paul Groth states that some downtown "residents literally cannot exist without them [SROs]" as they have "[f]ew, if any, housing alternatives." There are "myths about today's [SRO] hotel residents", claiming that they are all "isolated, needy, and disabled; all elderly; all on welfare; all elderly men; or all welfare mothers with three young children...[,] socially marginal, all mildly psychotic, all alcoholics or drug addicts, all drifters and transients", with some journalists using the derogatory term "welfare hotel". A 1985 study in Chicago revealed "a large minority of impoverished workers". In New York City, about one third of SRO dwellers are black and one quarter are Hispanic. Most SRO residents do not move more often than apartment renters, contrary to media references to "transients".

In the mid-1990s, many "city health officials, architects, city planners, and politicians still argue that no one should live in [SRO] hotels", which are viewed as leading to "severe social and physical maladjustment" and "public nuisance". Apart from media criticism, SRO residents are typically "unseen" and "invisible" in housing reform policies and reforms. SRO residents are typically not referred to explicitly in legislation, considered by city housing communities and urban development efforts, which means that SRO residents often have to move from district to district according to changes in real estate planning. San Francisco architect John Liu called SRO hotels the "most controversial, the most neglected, and the least understood of all housing types." The invisibility of SRO residents is caused by a lack of interest in the lives of the poor and in their lack of a "political constituency", as most housing policy focuses on the family. With the huge reductions in the number of SRO rooms available to the lowest-income populations in the US, the role of SROs is being taken over by homeless shelters; however, many homeless people avoid staying at shelters because they find them to be "dangerous and unappealing" or because they do not meet entry requirements (due to being intoxicated), leading to more people sleeping on the streets.

SRO hotels may be literally invisible to higher-income passers-by when they are discreetly located on the upper floors of a restaurant or retail store. There is a debate as to whether SRO hotel residents are "homeless". Paul Groth states that SRO residents are "not homeless. They are living in admittedly minimal and unusual dwelling units, often in hideous repair and under woefully inadequate management but dwelling units nonetheless." SROs were considered socially acceptable even as late as the late 1950s: the Alfred Hitchcock movie Vertigo depicted young administrative staff living in downtown SRO hotels. An equivalent term to SRO is "residential hotel".

YMCA
In the US, the YMCA began building SRO facilities in the 1880s to house people from rural areas who moved into cities to look for work. The typical YMCA SRO housing provides "low-income, temporary housing for a rent of $110 per week (in 2005)" for stays that are typically three to six months long. By 1950, 670 of the 1,688 YMCAs in the US provided SRO spaces, which made 66,959 beds available. By the 1970s, the typical YMCA tenant was more likely to be homeless people and youth facing life issues, rather than people migrating from rural areas.

The pop song and gay anthem "YMCA" by the Village People describes the YMCA's mix of "gay culture and working-class workouts coexisting in a single communal space", creating "a mix of white-collar and blue-collar residents, along with retired seniors and veterans", with about half of residents being gay. While the song gives the impression that YMCA SROs in the 1970s had a party atmosphere, Paul Groth states that YMCA SRO units actually had "more supervision of your social life—a kind of management as to how you behaved ... [than] in a commercial rooming house, which mostly wanted to make sure the rooms were rented", without monitoring who you brought to your room. While some YMCAs hired professionals to help homeless people and troubled youths (e.g., addictions counselors, social workers, etc.), overall, by the 2000s (decade), most YMCAs decided to move away from providing SROs. By 2004, only 81 of the 2,594 YMCAs still had SRO units.

New York City
For much of New York City's early history, housing was provided in shared accommodations that would probably be described as SROs today. These units provided housing for single, low-income men, and to a lesser degree, single low-income women. In New York City, the number of SRO units increased a great deal during the Great Depression, but with the deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people, SRO units became filled with tenants with mental health diagnoses, which led to bans on the building of new SRO units in the 1950s and taxation benefits for landlords to convert SROs into regular apartments. In the late 1940s, tens of thousands of Puerto Rican families moved to the Upper West Side; in response to this new demand for housing, landlords harassed tenants of rent-controlled apartments to get them to leave and turned apartments into multi-room SROs, in some cases almost tripling their rental income for the same apartment building. Housing aimed at Puerto Ricans rose in price in response to the demand, while landlords reduced their maintenance. As the numbers of Puerto Ricans increased, overcrowding developed and bodegas and Hispanic-oriented stores opened; the elderly white middle-income residents became "hysterical on the subject of crime and safety", with community meetings held to deal with the issue of "foreigners" and "low types".

The anti-SRO policies of 1955 were introduced when the demographics of SRO residents changed towards immigrant families; in an environment influenced by "varying degrees of xenophobia and racism", the city took steps to ban new SRO unit construction, prevent families from living in SROs, and change building codes and zoning to discourage SROs. In the 1970s, the city introduced tax incentives for landlords to encourage them to convert SROs into regular apartments, a program which from 1976 to 1981 eliminated two thirds of the SRO stock in the city.

While the city realized by the 1980s that SRO units needed to be preserved, due to their role in housing homeless people, and introduced policies to encourage SRO retention, the number of SRO units had fallen by one half (from its Depression-era highest number). In 1985, the city tried to stop the loss of the remaining SRO units by banning the "conversion, alteration, or demolition" of SRO buildings, but by 1989, this law was struck down by an appeals court. The huge loss of SRO units in New York City is "not the inevitable result" of "market forces"; it was caused by an interaction between city housing policies and market forces.

Current status
Paul Tyrrell states that when New York City housing prices rose in the early 2000s (decade), SRO landlords tried to remove longtime SRO tenants to free up their real estate for more lucrative uses (one of these being Airbnb-style short-term rental). The owners of the Ace Hotel, a former SRO facility, converted their building to a luxury hotel, with only a few long-term, low-income SRO tenants using their leases to stay in the hotel. There are about 100,000 illegal SRO units in New York City, many of which are "unsafe, with too many people" for the space and a lack of proper fire exits and ventilation. Some landlords who wish to convert their old SRO hotel into a luxury boutique hotel may harass the renters or bribe the low-income tenants so they will leave. New York City law requires building owners to receive a certificate of no harassment (CONH) in order to demolish or convert their building to prove they were not intentionally forcing tenants out through harassment or bribery. NYC residents of illegal SROs are reluctant to complain to housing authorities about the condition of their units or rent regulation violations, as doing so could lead to their eviction.

With the increasing popularity of Airbnb, an online room- and house-renting service, housing activists were concerned that the availability of SRO units would decrease, as landlords may find they can make more money from renting the rooms to tourists. In March 2016, affordable housing advocates in New York City were pleased when a judge ruled that an Upper West Side SRO facility (the Imperial Court Hotel) could not rent out rooms for less than 30 days, a short-term tenure that would favour tourist rentals over lower-income long-term renters.

In New York City, some public figures have been recommending that SRO's should be made available legally again, due to great increases in rental prices city wide. Rose Haggerty, an activist for affordable housing has been seeking to develop new affordable housing, as described below:

In late 2023, Governnor Kathy Hochul announced that millions would be spent on restoring SRO units for active housing. During the same period, Mayor Eric Adams announced sweeping new programs to provide afforable housing.

San Francisco
In the middle of the 19th century, gold prospectors, sailors, and seasonal fruit and vegetable pickers lived in San Francisco's SRO hotels during the winter. SROs played a key role in providing housing for immigrant single adults and families, particularly those from China, Philippines, Japan and Latino countries; the SRO district was nicknamed "hotel city" due to the number of SRO hotels. By the late 1940s, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency began working on "blight removal" and demolition, with thousands of SRO units destroyed to make way for redevelopment.

In 1966, pro-development members of the community formed the San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR) to lobby for the removal of poor, immigrant and minority SRO tenants: SPUR stated that "If San Francisco decides to compete effectively with other cities for new "clean" industries and new corporate power, its population will move closer to standard white Anglo-Saxon Protestant characteristics", and thus the association called for exerting "influence" over the city's population to achieve SPUR's goals of improving the "health of the city". In 1968, when a demolition permit was sought for the International Hotel, an SRO hotel inhabited by Filipino seniors, activists and protesters fought to stop it from being destroyed. Although community groups tried to stop the demolition with activism and court action, by 1977, the tenants were ordered to be evicted; protesters formed a human chain to stop the demolition, but police removed them and the building was razed.

During the 1970s, as San Francisco became a popular and economically successful city, job seekers came seeking homes; Justin Herman, the Executive Director of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency criticized the presence of SROs, saying "This land is too valuable to permit poor people to park on it". By 1980, the hotel and convention industries were lobbying for the building of new hotels for tourists; tenant activists protested what they viewed as the "Manhattanization" of the city, including the gentrification and impacts on traffic and air cleanliness. From 1975 to 2000, landlords eliminated about 6,085 SRO units. From 1989 to 2002, more than 1,700 SRO units were destroyed by fires. Even in the 2000s, immigrants live three or four tenants per SRO room.

San Francisco is an example of a city that took over particularly squalid SROs, and renovated them for the disadvantaged. Landlords who intend to convert SROs may try to convince their tenants to sign releases, which may require relocation by the landlord and/or compensating the tenant. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development subsidizes SRO rehabilitation to combat homelessness, under the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987. San Francisco passed an SRO Hotel Conversion Ordinance in 1980, which restricts the conversion of SRO hotels to tourist use. SROs are prominent in the Tenderloin, Mission District and Chinatown communities.

In 2001, San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly sponsored legislation making it illegal for SRO landlords to charge "visitor fees"—a practice long run in order for hotel managers to get a "cut" on drug-dealing or prostitution activities in the building. After a rash of fires destroyed many SROs in San Francisco and left nearly one thousand tenants homeless, a new program to reduce fire risk in SRO hotels was initiated. In 2015, there were reports that San Francisco's Hotel EPIK would turn the New Pacific Hotel, a former SRO hotel, into a luxury boutique hotel. A 1980 city ordinance prohibits SRO landlords from renting SRO units to tourists for short term stays (which will result in a fine unless the landlord creates a replacement SRO unit).

Jerry Threet, San Francisco' deputy city attorney, says that SROs are "often the last barrier between SF’s poorest population and the streets". Threet says some SRO owners do the "bare minimum to maintain their buildings", leading to unsafe SRO units. In 2014, City Attorney Dennis Herrera sued the owners and managers of 15 San Francisco SROs for "pervasive violations of state and local laws intended to protect residents’ health, safety and tenancy rights". Herrera alleges that the SROs harass or otherwise push out SRO tenants before they can get 30 days tenancy, which gives them protection, an action nicknamed "musical rooms". He also alleges that the SROs either do not do repairs of their units, or do repairs without permits and without licensed, qualified contractors.

In 2016, The Guardian reported that the average SRO rents in San Francisco's Chinatown are increasing from $610 in 2013, to $970 in 2015 (the average rent for all rental housing was $3,907). The increase in SRO rents is due to the shift away from renting to Chinese immigrants towards "college graduates, single adults and white people". In 2016, about 60% of San Francisco's supportive housing tenants lived in SRO hotels. Newspaper reporters found "chronic maintenance issues, health code violations and frustrated residents" at some of these SRO hotels, typically built a century ago, including the Crosby Hotel in Tenderloin, which had "vermin infestations", no power, leaking pipes, and an elevator that was unreliable. Following numerous complaints, the owners of the Crosby Hotel spent $700,000 to repair and upgrade the building. The problems in the city's old SRO hotels are "old buildings with aging infrastructure filled with traumatized or dysfunctional people who sometimes can be destructive or neglectful through hoarding, attracting vermin or willfully damaging property". The Henry, another SRO hotel, is also being improved, with staff giving it new paint, an atrium area, WiFi and computers.

A 2018 article states that some SRO landlords in San Francisco are "holding [SRO] rooms empty, perhaps for years, driving up the value of a building" rather than rent them to low-income people; Erik Schmitt states that one in seven SRO rooms in the city are vacant, with some hotels having 100% vacancy.

Seattle
The arrival of Asian immigrants to the Seattle area in the 1880s, many living in crowded rooming houses, led to concerns from the city council, which passed a cubic air ordinance in 1886 requiring 500 cubic feet of air space per resident. By the early 1900s (decade), Asian immigrants from Japan and China who settled in Seattle were typically the men from the family, who moved to the city's Chinatown and Nihonmachi districts and lived in SROs. Chinese immigrants came to Seattle to work as miners, cooks, railway laborers and cannery workers. These SRO residents used the restaurants, bath-houses, and barbershops to meet their living needs while they worked in Seattle-area industries. Some SROs aimed at Asian residents had a bath-house in the basement to serve Japanese immigrant clients.

One SRO in Seattle's Chinatown that housed immigrant workers, the West Kong Yick hotel, was closed in the 1970s when it could not afford to comply with Seattle fire and building code updates; it was still closed in 2018. By 1980, only 77 of Seattle's original 350 residential hotels were still standing, due to demolitions. In the 1990s, several of the big SRO hotels were renovated, including the Milwaukee, the Northern Pacific, and the Eastern; however, the fire, safety, and earthquake code upgrades led to big rental increases (for example, the Publix Hotel rental went from $75 per week for a SRO in the early 2000s to $1,350 per month for a micro-studio in 2018).

From 2009 to 2014, Seattle had a big increase in the building and creation of new SRO units designed to be rented at market rates, which had an average monthly rent of $660; In 2013, for example, 1,800 SRO units and microapartment units were built. In 2018, the media depicted the increasing popularity of micro apartments as a new trend; however, an article about Seattle in Market Urbanism Report states this is a "reenactment of the way U.S. cities have long worked", as individuals seeking "solo living and centralized locations" are willing to accept smaller apartments even though the per-square-foot prices may be higher than some larger units. The report states that 2018-era micro apartments were known as SROs in the early 20th century, and they housed "rich and poor alike" (although the rich lived in live-in luxury hotels and the poor lived in "bunkhouses for day laborers"). Neighborhood groups in Seattle have criticized new micro apartment SRO units, arguing that they "harmed community character and provided ... inhumane living conditions; due to these concerns, the city passed regulations that outlawed micro apartment/SRO construction.

Canada
In Canada, SRO hotels (also known as "residential hotels") are most often seen in Vancouver. (In other major cities such as Toronto, rooming houses in converted single-family dwellings are the equivalent form of affordable housing available.) SROs in Vancouver may be either privately-owned and for-profit, privately-owned and non-profit, or owned by government. As of 2019, there were a total of 156 SRO hotels in Vancouver. Most are occupied primarily (though not exclusively) by people struggling with mental health and/or addiction issues, and who are likelier than average to have experienced homelessness. Tenants typically have their own private rooms, but share washroom and kitchen facilities with other tenants. Rooms generally cost between $375 and $800 (CAD, c. 2015), well below the average cost of Vancouver rental housing. Most SROs were originally intended to be short-term accommodations for seasonal male workers, as well as young families, and recent immigrants, in the early 1900s. Two hotels which would later become notorious, the Balmoral and the Regent, were even considered luxury accommodations. However, first the Depression and then the 1970s closure of psychiatric hospitals (and attendant lack of regard or care of mentally ill Vancouverites), along with the flight of the wealthy and middle class to the suburbs, contributed to the decline and lack of investment in the Downtown Eastside. By the 1970s and 1980s, Vancouver SROs' reputations were poor. A 1989 University of British Columbia thesis by Mercedes Mompel Antolin asserted that only 10–20% of SROs were of good or acceptable quality at the time of writing. And even by 1989, the number of SROs was diminishing: 2,704 units were lost in the period between 1978 and 1986, largely due to the pressures of an increasingly hot real estate market.

Real estate market pressures on SRO tenants have not abated in the 30 years since that thesis was published. The market stock of SROs is decreasing both in terms of vacancy rates and in terms of affordability, and quality of life in SROs is highly variable. Certain privately-owned SRO hotels in Vancouver are notorious for their poor maintenance, absentee landlords, crime, and frequency of drug overdoses; the Sahota family has been responsible for the ownership of many such SRO hotels, such as the Regent and the Balmoral, both of which were ordered to close and were expropriated by the City of Vancouver. While the loss of these residences does not constitute the loss of quality rental stock (the Balmoral and the Regent were plagued by systemic and deliberate neglect, and tenants had to be evacuated), the decline in availability of affordable housing has been exacerbated by the closure of some SRO hotels.

Uses
SROs are a viable housing option for students, single tenants, seasonal or other traveling workers, empty nester widows/widowers, divorced men or women, low-income people, or others who do not want or need large dwellings or private domestic appliances. The smaller size and limited amenities in SROs generally make them a more affordable housing option, especially in gentrifying neighborhoods or urban areas with high land values and high rents.

The rents of many poor tenants may be paid in full or in part by charitable, state, or federal programs, giving incentive to landlords to accept such tenants. Some SRO buildings are renovated with the benefit of a tax abatement, with the condition that the rooms be rented to tenants with low incomes, and sometimes specific low-income groups, such as homeless people, people with mental illness, people with HIV/AIDS, and so on. A 1991 study stated that SROs can be successfully used to provide housing for people with chronic mental illness, as SROs give residents "personal freedom and privacy" while also giving a sense of community. Some SROs are operated or funded by charities, non-profit organizations, and/or governments as a way to provide supportive housing to "special needs populations", which include people facing drug and alcohol addiction, mental health issues, or disabilities.

More expensive units
While SRO units are mostly associated with low-income renters, in cities where dwellings are expensive and scarce, there may be "middle-class SROs", a type of microapartment aimed at middle class and professional renters. The first 2010s-era micro-unit housing building in New York City, Carmel Place, opened in 2016. It has 55 studios which go from 260 to 360 square feet. An article about "21st Century SROs" states that even though there is "still a stigma around SROs because of some of the experience of the last century", there is a "growing acceptance that small spaces can be well run and safe, healthy spaces to live and can be built more cheaply.” Common's Williamsburg in Brooklyn rents single rooms where tenants share a kitchen for $2,050 per month; The Guardian states that "[s]ingle room occupancy housing is obviously not a new concept, however, the genius of late capitalism is that it has made it desirable" to high-income renters.

In 2017 in New York City, Matthew and Seth Weissman, who operate Weissman Equities, renovated a partly empty apartment building in Harlem, creating furnished SRO units with 180 to 280 square feet, which rent for $1,200 to $1,600 per month (this includes utilities and cleaning). "Luxury", "amenity-laden" SRO units are available for $2,150 from Common Baltic in Boerum Hill and for $3,050 per month from WeLive (the residential version of co-working company WeWork).

In San Francisco, Starcity is converting unused parking garages, commercial spaces and offices into single-room residential units, where tenants (tech professionals are the typical renter) get a furnished bedroom and access to wifi, janitor services and common kitchens and lounges for $1,400 to $2,400 per month, an approach that has been called "dorm living for grownups".

In Atlanta, PadSplit is a cohousing organization that converts single-family homes into single rooms that their members can occupy individually, with a shared kitchen and bathroom, along with wifi, and laundry facilities. Unlike WeLive, which is aimed at high-income professionals, PadSplit is aimed at working-class members, and it has single-room dues from $500 to $750 per month.

Conditions
Depending on the landlords and the quality of the properties, SRO conditions can range from squalor to something like an extended-stay, basic hotel. Some have been designed and run in a dormitory fashion. Others have been "cage" hotels, in which a large room is split into many smaller ones with corrugated steel or sheetrock dividers or cubicles, which do not reach the height of the original ceiling. To prevent tenants from climbing over the walls into each other's spaces, the tops of the rooms are covered in chicken wire, making the rooms look something like cages. A 1991 article in Social Work calls SRO hotels the "nation's least desirable housing stock" and states that the facilities led to elderly people being "trapped in a situation that exacerbated their isolation and withdrawal from society", even though they were in "desperate need of social services". SRO buildings have been associated with fire risk; in Chicago alone, SROs with serious fires included Barton Hotel in 1955, the Royal Bench Hotel in 1981, the Paxton Hotel in 1993, and the J.R. Plaza Hotel (also called "the Zanzibar") in 1999. In the popular imagination, SRO hotels "carry the stigma of vice and drunkenness", and in fiction writing, there are novels where SROs are used to indicate skid row conditions.

While urban reformers who advocate for the removal of SROs state that "more 'dignified' forms of affordable housing" should be created in the place of SROs, Marco D'Eramo states that "SRO inhabitants have rejected this notion in... surveys, declaring themselves to be reasonably content with their lodger lifestyle." In the 1990s, SRO rooms in Chicago only cost about $60 less per month than renting a single-room apartment; however, SROs do not require a two-month deposit paid by check or credit card (thus requiring a bank account) and a guarantee of regular income (standard requirements for apartments). SRO hotels differ from government and nonprofit housing services in that whereas these facilities have requirements for "minimum age, alcoholic or drug program eligibility, religious affiliation, welfare system dependency", SRO hotels were anonymous and generally accepted anyone who could pay the monthly rent, without requiring identification and information for official databases, setting restrictions on when residents could enter or leave, or requiring exposure to religious recruitment. A study of 485 New York City SRO tenants found that elderly people wanted to stay in their SRO units, so that they could live in "centrally located neighborhoods where apartment housing was beyond their means", without sharing a room. The study concluded that for "many elderly residents, SROs meet needs not easily met by available alternatives" and recommended maintaining SROs as an option for seniors.

A 2013 study of the approximately 3,000 SRO tenants who live in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside found that two-thirds were previously homeless and had an average of three illnesses each, with 95% facing substance dependence and almost two-thirds doing injection drugs. Nearly half had psychosis or a neurological disorder and 18% were HIV-positive. About 28% of the participants were Indigenous. The death rate of the SRO tenants was five times greater than the general population. In a 2018 paper, Barbic et al stated that young adults living in Vancouver SROs were a "vulnerable" and low-income group with "complex health and substance problems compared to their peers in the general population", typically on "median two co-occurring illnesses, including mental, neurological, and infectious diseases", and all had "lifetime alcohol and cannabis use, with pervasive use of stimulants and opioids", and they had a great deal of contact with the "health, social, and justice systems".

SRO hotels are "often viewed as unsafe by youth" in Canada who are seeking affordable housing. At a Vancouver protest calling for more affordable housing, singer and actor Dalannah Gail Bowen stated that SRO units are "'horrible' places to live" that have "squalor, like Third World countries" that "[n]o one deserves to live in". Illegal, unlicensed SRO units that are created in homes and apartment buildings may be overcrowded and lack fire exits and ventilation. In 2013, SROs were described as a "poorly regulated last resort for the most desperate populations."

Debate and legal issues
In Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, an impoverished district where many SROs and homeless shelters are located, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled against an SRO hotel's requirement that visitors to the building show government-issued identification prior to entry. The hotel argued that the ID requirements were needed to provide a safe housing environment in what they called a "dangerous neighbourhood" with a "unique demographic" of individuals who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. The tenant who took the SRO to court argued that the policy was too restrictive, as many of his guests did not have ID. In the first ruling by the Residential Tenancy Branch, an arbitrator held that landlords cannot "unreasonably restrict access by guests to a rental property". The B.C. Supreme Court supported the arbitrator's decision, stating that there was no evidence that the tenant in the case had a history of issues with his behaviour on the property, and nor did his guests; the judge said that tenants and their guests should be protected against "unreasonable interference from landlords".

The construction of new SROs or conversion of existing homes to multiple SRO units was banned in New York City in 1955 due to concerns that they provided "substandard housing conditions" that were "improper and unsafe".

Renters of illegal SRO units typically live in units that do not meet health and safety standards; as well, since the units are unregulated, the renters do not have protection against eviction or rent increases. Many SRO buildings, particularly in major cities, face strong development pressure for conversion to more profitable uses as condos, luxury apartments or high-end hotels. Some cities have regulated the conversion of SROs to other uses in order to prevent landlords from forcibly evicting SRO tenants, while conversely many others limit the conversion of other uses into SROs and restrict them via zoning.

Some cities do both simultaneously, protecting existing SROs while making it virtually impossible to create new ones. A 2014 article about SRO housing in San Francisco stated that SROs have become a "key urban built environment used to house poor populations with co-occurring drug use and mental health issues"; specifically, it found that women drug users in SROs have more "post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression versus "stably housed women".

Possible development
In 2007, the musician Beyoncé Knowles provided $1 million towards the building of a $4 million SRO facility in Houston called Knowles-Temenos Place Apartments, which aim to provide supportive SRO housing for people trying to overcome "personal and natural disasters". The facility provides tenants with a shared business center (including computers and Internet access), with the individual rooms having a bath, mini refrigerator, mini-stove and a flat screen TV (wall-mounted), with the aesthetics and build quality similar to new apartment buildings in the downtown and midtown.

In SROs that are old, deteriorating hotels, some of the former amenities created for the hotel may have a new function for the current low-income SRO residents; for example, the lobby becomes a place for tenants to "wait for the ambulance, or to meet your addiction counselor, or to laugh and sing." In some old hotels that are now SROs, the nearby storefronts have transitioned from high-end restaurants and clothing shops (in the past) to "HIV-AIDS outreach groups, nongovernmental organizations, and social services offices". While most SROs are former residential hotels, some other building types have been repurposed into SRO usage, including mortuaries, dry cleaner facilities, nursing homes and schools.

Documentaries

 * Caged Men: Tales from Chicago's SRO Hotels (2017). Directed by Aaron Shipp.
 * Single Room Occupancy. A short documentary about Harlem SROs facing gentrification by Alexander Lewis and Artemis Shaw.

title: Single-room occupancy


text:
Latchkey kid

A latchkey kid, or latchkey child, is a child who returns to an empty home after school (or other activities) or a child who is often left at home with no supervision because their parents are away at work. Such a child can be any age, alone or with siblings who are also under the age of maturity for their community.

History of the term
The term refers to the latchkey of a door to a house or apartment. The key is often strung around the child's neck or left hidden under a mat (or some other object) at the rear door to the property. The term seems to first appear in a CBC Radio program called "Discussion Club – Topic: How War Affects Canadian Children" in 1942, due to the phenomenon of children being left home alone during World War II, when the father would be enlisted into the armed forces and the mother would need to get a job. Given that the "Discussion Club" participants are all familiar with the term and allude to it being in colloquial usage, it likely predates 1942. In general, the term "latchkey" designates "those children between the ages of five and thirteen who care for themselves after the school day until their parents or guardians return home".

More specifically for their purposes, the San Marino (CA) Public Library has defined a Library Latchkey Child as "one, who, on a regular basis, is required by their parents or guardian to remain at the public library for extended periods of time after school in lieu of day care. 'Regular basis' is defined as three or more days per week. 'Extended period' is defined as two or more hours per day" (American Library Association 12).

The term latchkey kid became commonplace in the 1970s and 1980s to describe members of Generation X who, according to a 2004 marketing study, "went through its all-important, formative years as one of the least-parented, least-nurtured generations in U.S. history." Latchkey kids were prevalent during this time, a result of increased divorce rates and increased maternal participation in the workforce at a time before childcare options outside the home were widely available. These latchkey children, referred to as "day orphans" in the 1984 documentary, To Save Our Children to Save Our Schools, mainly came from middle or upper-class homes. The higher the educational attainment of the parents, the higher the odds the children of this time would be latchkey kids.

Effects on children
The effects of being a latchkey child differ with age. Loneliness, boredom and fear are most common for those younger than ten years of age. In the early teens, there is a greater susceptibility to peer pressure, potentially resulting in such behavior as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity and smoking. The behaviors might stem from "unspent energy, peer pressure to misbehave, or hostility because of the lack of appropriate adult attention". In one study, middle school students left home alone for more than three hours a day reported higher levels of behavioral problems, higher rates of depression, and lower levels of self-esteem than other students.

If, however, there are enough stimuli at home, such as books, computers, games, solitary hobbies such as modelmaking, etc., the negative effects can be averted. The child may learn independent lifestyle, such as making meals, very early.

Socioeconomic status and length of time left alone can bring forth other negative effects. Children from lower income families are associated with greater externalizing issues (such as conduct disorders and hyperactivity) and academic problems. This association was weaker for children from middle income families as compared to their supervised peers. In 2000, a German PISA study found no significant differences in the scholastic performance between "latchkey kids" and kids in a "nuclear family". We can see these effects on children when their parents are not around, whether they be at work or just being plain neglectful.

Positive effects of being a latchkey child include independence and self-reliance at a young age. Deborah Belle, author of The After-School Lives of Children: Alone and with Others While Parents Work suggests that being left home alone may be a better alternative to staying with baby-sitters or older siblings. Latchkey parenting allows for guardians to gain more money if they work while their kids are caring for themselves.

Legal issues
The legality of the latchkey children's "alone time" varies with country, state and local area laws. In the United States, state and local laws typically do not specify any particular age under 18 when a child can be legally left without supervision. However, some states do have specific age restrictions. Yet, most of the US states have no minimum age for leaving kids unsupervised.

Parents can be held accountable by child welfare, child protective services organizations, or law enforcement if children come to harm while left without supervision if, in the opinion of the agency, the children's age or other considerations made such a choice inappropriate. Legal issues also continue to be important concerns for those who work in libraries. They worry about the potential liability should an unattended child be hurt, molested or abducted while at the facility. This issue becomes critical, particularly at closing time when "parents who are late picking up their children also create safety, and, possibly, legal problems."

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Latchkey kid


text:
User:InlovewithGod

inlovewithGod
Jeremiah Martell's user page.

His home page is at inlovewithGod

title: User:InlovewithGod


text: Category talk:Indiana

title: Category talk:Indiana


text: User talk:81.153.17.34

title: User talk:81.153.17.34


text: Template:Footer Olympic Champions Belgium Women


text:
Battle of Danzig Bay

The Battle of Danzig Bay (bitwa w Zatoce Gdańskiej) took place on 1 September 1939, at the beginning of the invasion of Poland, when Polish Navy warships were attacked by German Luftwaffe aircraft in Gdańsk Bay (then Danzig Bay). It was the first naval-air battle of World War II.

Background
The Polish Navy of the Second Polish Republic (1919–39) was prepared mostly as means of supporting naval communications with France in case of a war with the Soviet Union. After it became apparent that the aggressor would be Germany, and the entrance to the Baltic Sea would be blocked, three out of the four Polish modern destroyers were withdrawn from the Baltic Sea to Great Britain in what was called Operation Peking. The remaining forces, consisting of one large minelayer, one destroyer, five submarines and smaller vessels were to execute two major naval operations, both aimed at disrupting the German naval movement in the area of the Danzig Bay and transit movement between Germany and East Prussia. All submarines were dispatched for their operational zones in the southern Baltic to take part in the Worek Plan, an attempt to defend the Polish coast against possible German landings.

Prelude
All the remaining surface vessels were to be dispatched from the naval base in Gdynia to Hel Peninsula, from where they were to start the so-called Operation Rurka. The plan was to lay a naval mine barrier between Hel Peninsula and Danzig to prevent any enemy ship from entering the area.

At dusk ten Polish warships left Gdynia for Hel, located on the other side of the bay. There, the ships were to start the minelaying operation. They were as follows: large minelayer ORP Gryf (1936), minelaying minesweepers ORP Jaskółka, ORP Czapla, ORP Żuraw, ORP Czajka, ORP Rybitwa and ORP Mewa and gunboats ORP Komendant Piłsudski and Generał Haller. The destroyer ORP Wicher (1928) had left for its position earlier that day and did not partake in the battle.

That afternoon a German reconnaissance aircraft spotted Gryf. Within half an hour a German airstrike was organized and launched.

Battle
While traversing Danzig Bay, the flotilla was surprised by a group of 33 German warplanes, mostly Junkers Ju 87B Stuka dive bombers. The German aircraft divided themselves into two groups and attacked. The Polish ships zig-zagged wildly to avoid being hit. Concentrated AA fire forced the planes to bomb from a higher altitude. The air raid was mostly unsuccessful and the Polish vessels suffered only minor losses. The backbone of the Polish flotilla, ORP Gryf with over 300 naval mines on board, remained unharmed.

However, soon after the first air raid was repelled, the German bombers returned, around 18:00. There were no direct hits, but two Polish minelayers suffered damage from near misses and machine gun fire, ORP Gryf and ORP Mewa. A near miss disabled Mewa, killing or wounding her 22 crewmen, so that she had to be taken in tow by Rybitwa. The commanding officer of ORP Gryf, Cmdr. Stefan Kwiatkowski, was killed by German machine gun fire, 29 of his men were wounded, and his ship's rudder was jammed. Gryf's executive officer, Lt. Cmdr. Wiktor Łomidze assumed command. Fearing that her cargo of 300 mines was a liability, he ordered the munitions be thrown overboard.

Aftermath
After the air raids, the Polish flotilla arrived at Hel. However, since ORP Gryf had abandoned all of its mines and was damaged, Operation Rurka had to be called off. ORP Wicher, did not receive the orders calling off the operation and went straight to the pre-designed zone of operations to cover the minelayers. At night, Wicher, commanded by Lt. Cdr. Stefan de Walden, spotted two German destroyers, and later a ship misidentified as a light cruiser, but did not attack, not wanting to compromise the operation.

After return to Hel Peninsula, Wicher and Gryf were stripped of most of equipment and served as anti-aircraft platforms in the Hel naval base.

title: Battle of Danzig Bay


text:
Matrix scheme

A matrix scheme (also known as a matrix sale or site, and as a hellevator, excavator or ladder scheme) is a business model involving the exchange of money for a certain product with a side bonus of being added to a waiting list for a product of greater value than the amount given. Matrix schemes are also sometimes considered similar to Ponzi or pyramid schemes. They have been called "unsustainable" by the United Kingdom's Office of Fair Trading. A matrix scheme is also an example of an 'exploding queue' in queueing theory.

History
The first known matrix scheme is widely believed to be EZExpo.com, which started the popularity of matrix schemes in 2002. By 2003 more than 200 matrix schemes were in operation, including one which had the same owner as the payment processor StormPay (TymGlobal). Subsequently, both TymGlobal and StormPay were accused of running an illegal Ponzi scheme. StormPay later claimed to be independent of TymGlobal, and they stopped accepting matrix schemes as customers. Although many have since ceased trading, some schemes are still known to be operating worldwide. The payment processor, StormPay, is no longer trading.

Operation
The operation of matrix schemes varies, though they often operate similarly to pyramid or Ponzi schemes. Some of the former participants of these schemes consider them to be a form of confidence trick, although others are happy with their purchase.

To move upward in the list, a person must wait for new members to join or refer a certain number of people to the list. This is accomplished through purchasing a token product of marginal value: usually e-books, cell phone boosters, screen savers, or other software CDs/DVDs. When a pre-defined number of people have purchased the token product, the person currently at the top of the list receives their reward item, and the next person in the list moves to the top. The rewards for those at the top of the matrix list are usually high-demand consumer electronics, such as portable digital audio players, high-definition television sets, laptops, and cellphones. Reaching the point on the list where one receives the expensive goods is termed "cycling".

In many cases, the token product alone could not be reasonably sold for the price listed, and as such legal experts claim that, regardless of what is said, the real product being sold is the "reward" in question in those situations. In these cases, the operator could be charged with running a gambling game or failing to supply ordered products. Steven A. Richards, a lawyer who represents multi-level marketing (MLM) companies for Grimes & Reese in Idaho Falls, Idaho, has stated that often there are no clear legal tests for Ponzi schemes. But if the product sold has no value or very little value, and consumers wouldn't buy it without the attached gift, the scheme probably runs afoul of federal and state laws.

The "Matrix List" by which the sites receive their name would be what is known as a straight-line matrix, or one-by-X matrix. This is similar to many MLMs that use Y-by-X matrices to fill a down-line.

For example, one situation may be a one-by-10 matrix for a video game console (a common reward). In such a matrix the site would usually sell an e-book for $50 to be placed on the list. After nine additional people purchased a spot, the first person would receive either a video game console (or cash value equivalent) and would be removed from the list. The person who had been second would move up to the first spot and an additional 10 people would have to purchase spots in order for that person to receive a console. It is this orderly movement which has also given the name "elevator scheme" to these sites, as people move up the "elevator" (escalator, ladder) to the top at which they would then "cycle" out of the matrix.

In such a matrix, 9 out of 10, or 90 percent, of all customers will not receive the reward item, because the rules of the scheme are that one reward is issued for every 10 customers that join. (The fact that the reward is issued to the customer at the top of the list doesn't change the proportion of rewards given to customers signed up.) Supporters claim that additional revenue streams from advertising are used to keep the lists moving. However, detractors claim that it is impossible to generate enough outside revenue. If the entire world were to join the list, 90 percent of the world would be unable to cycle if the site did not draw sufficient alternate revenue streams. Adding more people to the list does not change the fact that the majority would receive nothing without these streams.

Additionally, the amount of time needed before a given individual will receive the product in question is often mistaken. In a matrix in which 10 people must sign up before cycling, the first person to join only needs nine additional sign-ups to cycle, but the second person needs 18 additional sign-ups: eight more for the person above them, and then 10 more for themself. The third person on the list likewise needs 27 additional signups: seven for the person on top of the list, 10 for the person directly above them, and then 10 for themself. The number of people required continues to grow for each new person joining the list. For the 10th person to cycle a total of 100 people would have to sign up, 1000 for the 100th, and so on.

Through this process, the matrix scheme generates substantial profit for its organiser. At the time of its popularity, for example, a PlayStation 2 cost a maximum of $299. After selling 10 $50 e-books, the organiser could make $500, and could purchase a PS2 for $299 to send to the first bidder while retaining a $201 of capital in return. But the schemer must take in consideration the actual price of an e-book which could be around 10$. Finally, the buyer would have a profit of $101 (=201-10×10) This same process could be repeated every time the matrix cycles; if the matrix cycled 10 times, the organiser would have sold $5000 worth of e-books, of which $2990 would have been spent on 10 PS2s, leaving them with a revenue of $2010, and a profit of $1010.

In queueing theory
A matrix scheme is easily represented as a simple M/M/1 queue within the context of queueing theory. In such a system there is a Markovian arrival, Markovian service, and one single server. In the standard matrix queue, service rates are a function of arrival rates since the time to cycle out of the queue is based on the entry fee into the matrix from arriving members. Also, since members move through the matrix in single file, it is easy to associate the single server.

The basic premise of queueing theory is that when arrival rates equal or exceed service rates, overall waiting time within the queue moves towards infinity.

The basic formulation includes three formulae. The traffic intensity, ρ, is the average arrival rate (λ) divided by the average service rate (μ):

$$\rho = \lambda / \mu$$

The mean number of customers in the system (N):

$$N = \rho / (1 - \rho)$$

And the total waiting time within the queue (T):

$$T = 1 / (\mu - \lambda )$$

It is possible to see that as arrival rates rise towards service rates, the total waiting time (T) and mean number of customers in the system (N) will move towards infinity. Since service time can never exceed the arrival time in the standard matrix, and total waiting time can only be defined if service times exceed arrival times, the only way for the matrix queue to reach stability is for outside income sources to exceed those being entered into the system.

Legality
Currently there are no laws specifically naming matrix schemes illegal in the US. However, the US Federal Trade Commission has issued warnings to the public about these sites. Additionally, the US Federal Trade Commission and the UK Trading Standards have issued warnings to the public regarding the ease with which these models can be manipulated for fraudulent purposes. Many of the original matrix sites, including EZExpo.com, are no longer in operation; some of them closed down while defending civil lawsuits. In 2003 EZExpo and several payment processors were sued in the civil courts for running an illegal lottery in the state of California, with the payment processors abetting the scam. However, the civil case is still ongoing. One result of the lawsuit is that those payment processors and some others no longer accept matrix schemes as customers. Currently, no legal precedent exists regarding the matrix scheme in the US.

In the UK, the Office of Fair Trading has declared some of them to be illegal. On 1 July 2005, two matrix sites, pulsematrix.com and phones4everyone (themobilematrix.com), were declared to be running a form of illegal lottery. These two sites promptly closed down as part of a settlement agreement with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). Other similar matrix sites also used this decision to close down their sites. A few UK matrix sites carried on by utilising contractual law to trade legally, with one major site carrying on until May 2006 when it was sold to a company in Denmark. In the UK there is no specific law against matrix sites.

Other countries may have different laws regarding these matrix sites, but information is unavailable at this time.

title: Matrix scheme


text:
Vang Vieng

Vang Vieng (ວັງວຽງ, ) is a town in the Vientiane Province in Laos. It is popular with tourists, specifically backpackers, seeking adventure sports as well as its karst topography. It is on the Nam Song River, 130km north of Vientiane (2 hours by car or bus).

History
Vang Vieng was first settled around 1353 as a staging post between Luang Prabang and Vientiane. Originally named Mouang Song after the body of the deceased King Phra Nha Phao of Phai Naam was seen floating down the river, the town was renamed Vang Vieng during French colonial rule in the 1890s.

Significant expansion of the town and its infrastructure occurred during the 1964-1973 Vietnam War when the US constructed an air force base and runway that was used by Air America. The airstrip was then called "Lima site 6". The runway has not been built on and can easily be seen via aerial or satellite images located between the main street and the national highway (Route 13). American plane hangars also remain in the area.

Since Laos opened up for tourism in the late 1990s, the town has grown substantially due to the influx of backpackers and associated business development. The town became popular with tourists due to the opportunities for adventure tourism along the Nam Song River and in the spectacular limestone karst landscape surrounding the town.

Climate
Vang Vieng has a tropical monsoon climate according to the Köppen climate classification, with a distinct dry season and a lengthy and rainy wet season, totalling about 3300 millimeters a year. The wet season lasts seven months, from April to October, and is characterized by high amounts of rainfall, which peaks in July with an average of 840 millimeters. The dry season spans November to March, and features cooler temperatures than during the rest of the year. The weather in Vang Vieng is coolest during the months of December and January, and hottest from March to May. Overall, the temperature ranges from an average low of 13.5 °C in January to an average high of 34 °C in April.

Transportation
The city is served by the Vientiane–Boten Expressway since its opening in 2020; previously the only major road access was through Route 13. It is served by a station on the Boten–Vientiane railway.

Tourism
Vang Vieng has become a backpacker-oriented town, with the main street featuring guest houses, bars, restaurants, internet cafes, and tour agencies. Attractions of the town include inner tubing and kayaking on the Nam Song River, which, until 2012, was lined with bars selling Beer Lao and Lao-Lao, and equipped with rope swings, zip lines, swimming and diving into blue lagoon, and large decks for socializing.

Vang Vieng locals have organised themselves into a cooperative business association to sell tubing as an activity, in a system in which 1,555 participating households are divided into 10 village units, with each unit taking its turn on a ten-day rotation to rent inner-tubes to the tourists.

Thanongsi Sorangkoun, owner of an organic farm in Vang Vieng, says that tubing inadvertently began in 1999 when he bought a few rubber tubes for his farm volunteers to relax on along the river.

During the wet season, the river can be a series of rapids.

Other activities include trekking and rock climbing in the limestone mountains. There are also numerous caves, such as Tham Phu Kham half an hour north of Vang Vieng by tuk-tuk or the Tham Non and Tham Jang caves closer to Vang Vieng.

A market five kilometres north of town sells Lao textiles, household items, and foodstuffs. The town is on the main north–south highway, Route 13 from Luang Prabang to the capital, Vientiane. It is about eight hours by bus to Luang Prabang and four hours to Vientiane (152 km).

Just a short walk from town are many ethnic Lao, Kmou, and Hmong villages, while Vang Vieng Organic Farm is around 4 km north of the town in the village of Phoudindaeng. There are opportunities for community involvement such as teaching, while it is also possible to stay in a house made of mud bricks at the organic farm.

Wat Done Hor is the oldest of the five temples in Vang Vieng, built in 1903.

Impact of tourism
Due to the influx of backpackers, Vang Vieng locals have seen drastic changes in their community. In recent years, Vang Vieng has become a stop on the Southeast Asia backpacker circuit and the main street has many guest houses, bars, restaurants, internet cafes and tour agencies.

There are concerns that the town is in danger of losing its charm as it becomes full of tourists, mushroom shakes, and episodes of Friends, a US sitcom shown in many bars. The New Zealand Herald wrote, "If teenagers ruled the world, it might resemble Vang Vieng". Safety measures for the tubing have been described as "non-existent". Tubing combined with heavy drinking has resulted in tourist drownings. It was reported that 22 tourists died on the river in 2011.

The Lao government is planning to put more controls on the urban sprawl of Vang Vieng, while the Laos National Tourism Administration has "awareness programs" that ask tourists to "respect and strictly follow the rules, regulations, tradition and cultures of the Lao people", while also educating local people to maintain the Lao identity, way of life, tradition, and culture and not imitate tourist behaviour. Vang Vieng is known to have a problem with drugs, which are easily accessible to both tourists and local children.

Locals have said that tubing and tourism are destroying the town's culture and encouraging crime among children, while loud music destroys the area's tranquility. A report on the future of tourism in Vang Vieng found that many budget tubers were "oblivious to, or uncaring about, the types of social, economic and environmental impact they are associated with." A master plan for Vang Vieng notes that local grievances include pollution, inappropriate behaviour of tourists and environmental damage.

Brett Dakin, the author of Another Quiet American, a chronicle of two years in Laos working for the tourist authority, said, "Each time a young Australian woman strolls down the street in a bikini, a bearded American smokes a joint on a guesthouse terrace, or a group of Koreans tumbles drunkenly out of a restaurant, it saps a little more of the essence of a town like Vang Vieng."

Crime
As of June 2014, the US State Department says that although Laos generally has a low rate of violent crime, "some tourists have been robbed and sexually assaulted". Many restaurants in the Vang Vieng area offer menu items, particularly "pizzas", "shakes", or "teas" that may contain unknown substances or opiates. These products are often advertised as "happy" or "special" items. These unknown substances or opiates can be dangerous, causing serious illness or even death.

Tourist deaths and injuries
Vang Vieng's hospital recorded 27 tourist deaths in 2011 due to drowning or diving head first into rocks. Most fatalities occur on the same bar-heavy stretch of river that's less than 1 km long. In a 2012 interview with The Guardian newspaper, a senior doctor at the Vang Vieng Hospital, Dr Chit, said the overall figure is higher because "many fatalities are taken straight to Vientiane". In early 2012, two Australian backpackers died within a month. Dr Chit said 5 to 10 backpackers a day arrive at the local hospital with injuries such as broken bones or infected gashes, or sickness caused by alcohol intoxication or other drugs. "There are no safety measures or supervision, no helmets," says Dr Chit. "We're not equipped to treat anything serious."

The Guardian reported that tourist deaths have brought a sense of bad karma for Laotian villagers living near the river. Today, local people avoid the river, once a part of everyday life for bathing, playing, fishing, and washing clothes. "We don't want to swim in the river any more," explains La Phengxayya, 25, a primary school teacher in Phoudindaeng, the village closest to the tubing area. "We believe there are evil spirits in the water because so many young foreigners have died.".

Government crackdown
In the third quarter of 2012, the Lao government carried out a crackdown in Vang Vieng, pulling down all the riverside bars. Tubing is still going on, but in a much more controlled fashion.

By October 2013, one climbing instructor was reported to have said that visitors are now spending more time participating in activities such as climbing, kayaking, and mountain biking. "Vang Vieng has come back to us again… it's like it used to be", he was quoted as saying.

Around the same time, the Bangkok Post reported that although the number of Westerners has dropped, visitors from Japan, China, and South Korea are on the rise, making up for the loss. The changing trend posed a new problem as tourists from Asia did not favour cheap accommodation and preferred more upmarket places, the report added.

title: Vang Vieng


text:
Buenos Aires Stock Exchange

The Buenos Aires Stock Exchange (BCBA; Bolsa de Comercio de Buenos Aires) is the organization responsible for the operation of Argentina's primary stock exchange located at Buenos Aires central business district. Founded in 1854, it is the successor to the Banco Mercantil, which was created in 1822 by Bernardino Rivadavia.

Citing BCBA's self-definition: "It is a self-regulated non-profit civil association. At its Council sit representatives of all different sectors of Argentina's economy."

The most important index of the stock market is the MERVAL (from MERcado de VALores, "stock market"), which includes the most important papers. Other indexes are Burcap, Bolsa General and M.AR., and currency indicators Indol and Wholesale Indol.

The Stock Exchange's current, Leandro Alem Avenue headquarters was designed by Norwegian-Argentine architect Alejandro Christophersen in 1913, and completed in 1916. A modernist annex was designed by local architect Mario Roberto Álvarez in 1972, and inaugurated in 1977.

The Buenos Aires Stock Exchange houses a specialized library containing more than 20,000 volumes focused on stock exchanges and securities markets, commercial law, corporations, banks, and currency. This extensive collection serves as a valuable research resource for various individuals, including academics, law and economics students, historians, scholars, researchers, and professionals seeking information related to the stock market. The library's vast array of newspapers includes prominent daily publications, technical journals, and magazines.

Currently, the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange is in the initial stages of enhancing its database system to improve the management of its 28,000 entries. This new project aims to utilize the BCBA Library's bibliographic resources to support the Economic and Social Information Network of Networks (UNIRED), which facilitates access to a vast repository of 1.3 million bibliographic entries from libraries nationwide. As an active member of UNIRED, the BCBA Library plays a crucial role in enabling access to this extensive collection of knowledge.

title: Buenos Aires Stock Exchange


text: User talk:80.148.25.57

title: User talk:80.148.25.57