Choosing for age
Housing development follows demography, and with America graying, developers have found a profitable niche in age-restricted (don’t say “elderly only”!) properties:
New housing restricted to residents 55 and over is surging in Massachusetts, a trend that builders say is a response to demand from retiring baby boomers who want smaller homes, neighbors their age, and such amenities as nearby walking trails or clubhouses [Or quiet after 10:00 pm! -- Ed.].
A survey by the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association, due to be released on Monday, found that at least 10,000 units for residents 55 and older are under construction or have been built over the last five years or so, and 14,000 more units are in the planning stages.
In developing nations (like Kenya), demand explodes for family housing; at the spectrum’s other end, like
Here in the
… both an expanding population and a graying one (great animation!), so we need not only more housing, but more elderly-compatible housing:
“Watch your mouth out with soap for calling me elderly!”
But age-restricted developments have raised concerns among state officials and some housing activists that towns are intentionally welcoming older residents instead of younger families that include school-age children who strain municipal budgets. In many communities, the cost of educating a child exceeds the taxes collected from the average homeowner.
Of course it will, because taxes are calibrated for an aggregate budget, and the average property owner will have fewer than one child in public school. So cities and towns love age-restricted developments:
”Communities are pushing the developers in that direction thinking it’s going to have the least amount of impact,” said Fred Habib, deputy director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development.
Many town officials acknowledge that age-restricted housing does not add an immediate burden on the schools. But they note that young families may buy the homes vacated by older people who have chosen to move into the developments.
Ownership is transitory, so robust neighborhoods offer a range of prices, configurations, and tenures within the same local community:
They also point out that older residents incur some municipal costs — though not nearly as expensive as schools — such as town-run senior centers.
Sorry, town officials, that’s blather. Considered as a demography, the elderly are clearly profitable for towns: no schools, fewer services, less crime, they pay taxes, and they have political clout. They are desirable residents — and they are mobile — so communities would be wise to keep them.
You might think that the oldsters would fly south, but the social web of connections — family, friends, and the irresistible lure of grandchildren — typically keeps people close to home:
Many older residents want to move into smaller, more manageable homes, but stay close to their hometowns.
As a result, elderly housing demand is rising everywhere in the country:
With 1.5 million
Yep, that’s me, squarely in the baby boom …
Based on the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association figures, along with state numbers, age-restricted homes in
Aaron Gornstein, executive director of CHAPA, stressed that his group recognizes the need for housing for older residents, and the report concludes that much of the early age-restricted housing has been successful.
Dave Schreiner, vice president of active adult business development for Pulte Homes, one of the builders at the Pinehills, said that although some communities see age-restricted homes as a way to control school growth, they end up meeting a need.
”The reality is that’s where the market is going,” Schreiner said.
