The Elderly Belong Too

What happened to the social contract? Even as the San Fernando Valley secession movement chugs forward with its empty promises of better local government, some vocal residents seem less willing than ever to embrace the notion that they owe anything to their communities. Over the summer, two neighborhoods rose in anger to denounce what they saw as blights on their quiet lives. The objects of their fury? In both cases, residents lashed out at facilities designed to let elderly patients with Alzheimer’s and other kinds of memory loss live their last days with dignity.

In Encino, some residents along Densmore Drive blasted a proposal to open a residential care facility in a six-bedroom house. They feared additional traffic and a possible decline in property values--complaining, in effect, that a leafy residential neighborhood was no place for old people with debilitating illnesses to live.

In Woodland Hills, plans to develop a vacant three-acre lot as a 60-bed home for Alzheimer’s patients and others met with howls of protest from neighbors who complained that the walls designed to keep residents safe made the place look more like a prison. In fact, the walls would be part of the facility’s draw because they would allow residents to move freely without fear of wandering away and getting lost.

Both proposals are part of a growing trend in the care of the nation’s aging population. As people live longer, healthier lives, their needs change--particularly when their minds deteriorate faster than their bodies. So do sensibilities about how to care for them. Big, hospital-like facilities are still common, but smaller homes that make residents more comfortable are growing in popularity with the elderly as well as with their families and insurance companies.

The trick lies in figuring out where to put them. Obviously, large hospitals or nursing homes belong in commercial areas or neighborhoods already developed with apartments and condominiums. The roads and sewers and other infrastructure in those areas can handle the demands of a large facility. But smaller homes belong in residential neighborhoods.

There is no legitimate reason to shunt the oldest and frailest members of society to busy streets or industrial areas simply because they are an inconvenience. And there are questions about just how much of an inconvenience these facilities are. Sadly, those who care for the elderly say traffic is rarely much of a problem because most residents get so few visitors.

The essence of community is the ability to live well together. To be a member of a community means gaining certain benefits in exchange for certain responsibilities--chief among them the willingness to rank selfish interests second to the greater good. Everyone wants the benefits of a community, but few seem willing to make the relatively minor sacrifices they require. A home where the old can live and die quietly in surroundings that are friendly and humane should be worth the price of a few extra cars or an infringed view. If not, the social contract should be redrawn to exclude everything beyond our individual property lines.