I look forward to the coming youth movement in the face of the current crop of geriatric leadership.
I am sympathetic to the elderly wanting to age in place. At the brute level of politics, they can argue it is simply a game of clashing interests, young vs old, and the old know how to play the game better (again by simply voting, it isn't rocket science).
However the economy is suffering because housing near employment centers is often controlled by people who no longer work. This introduces inefficiencies. A retired homeowner could argue, then move the jobs. But that is precisely the inefficiency. Jobs are costlier to move than retirees.
This is why I come down on the side of the youth. The economy is underperforming, and that affects everyone. This makes it more than a clash of competing interests. It makes it a typical political deformation when a motivated interest group controls policy to the detriment of everyone else.
Hospitals, doctor's offices, pharmacies, ambulance services, all will need to move to be closer to the elderly. That is often a sizable chunk of the employment in an area.
Labor such as yardwork, snow removal, home repairs - things that young fit people can do themselves and can't afford to hire people for, but elderly people can't do and instead hire people for - those jobs would all need to move to be closer to the elderly.
Public transit ridership often skews to the elderly who no longer drive. It's vital to their mobility. So you'd need to move public transit with them.
Retail and restaurants - working people are at work in the day, a sizable chunk of the customers are older retired people. So you'll need to move the retail and restaurants as well.
If you move all the elderly and all the businesses they use away from the city, what is left? Schools and offices, maybe a few bars, pawnshops, tattoo parlors, and payday loans places?
Mixed-use neighborhoods are definitely a better idea than trying to ship all the elderly off to some rural area where they'd be out of the way. Society benefits from people of different ages, experiences, and classes interacting regularly instead of being segregated.
Give it time, there's a lot of long-term damage to the housing market and this is just a baby step in the right direction.
> What is the net impact on quality of life?
Well hopefully when this thing really gets rolling, quality of life might improve for the 25% of renters in the state who are paying over 50% of their income in rent and utilities.
Not yet. The first wave of developments is now in the pipeline, not yet built.
But maybe because I never lived on the west coast? Is zoning restriction a poorly use tool there?
Cause I’ve met a lot of those folks. Former hippies who bitch about taxes.