When a House Value Is Not a Home Value

I greatly appreciated Saul Janson’s “There Goes the Neighborhood” (Voices, May 18), illuminating the bittersweet joys of homeownership. He comments, “Sure, it’s comforting to come home to this huge asset every day, but I’m not planning to go anywhere.” This reflects that fact that there are two widely held assumptions about continuing to live in one’s home. We can make both more tenable.

First is the assumption that we’ll be able to go where we’ve gone before. Friends, family members and homeowners may be excluded from a home that isn’t accessible. “Well, you can always buy another one” sounds nice, but often choice will be limited, property taxes will be much higher (thanks to Proposition 13, they’re limited on the home the homeowner can no longer inhabit) and income won’t have kept pace with housing prices. (Santa Monica and Irvine are among the national leaders in ensuring accessibility in new construction.)

Second is an assumption that there will be adequate in-home assistance. Medicaid funds could be used for this. This would be a great savings to taxpayers, who now subsidize the nursing-home industry. That’s the intent of the Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act pending before Congress. Building on these initiatives, we can avoid what could have been Janson’s headline: “Here Comes the Neighborhood: Richer Monetarily, but Poorer in Ethnicity, Age and Disability Diversity.”

Arthur Blaser

Orange

*

If there were a contest to choose the most ridiculous whine of the year, Janson’s complaint would be a sure winner.

James Glover

Sun Valley