Encouraging older people to move to retirement home type villages

c68zapdsm5i1ru

I saw an article in the paper yesterday where the Govt are proposing that older people be offered tax incentives to move into retirement home type villages in order to free up family size houses for younger couples.

Personally I think it's an awful idea. Older people are part of the community, have a lot to offer and in many cases frequently have family, including grandchildren coming to stay and still need a family sized house - which they have paid for over many years.

Just wondering what others think.

Atoms for Peace

Once you reach thirty it should be off to the Soylent green factory with you.

kneemos

Sit at home in a big empty house waiting for a visit from your kids or,live in a community of your own age group with loads of friends and activities and supports.

Calhoun

Isn't this for council houses ? Or is this another scheme announced ? I would think they have very little powers to do this in the private world.

As for council stock, it's not an overly bad idea to review the housing assignments based on the need.

Franz Von Peppercorn

I’d be happy enough in a retirement villlage myself.

As Wilfred Brimley would say, will there be a pool?;)??

Harry Palmr

Old people need to move to be managed for social and health reasons.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

kneemos wrote: »

Sit at home in a big empty house waiting for a visit from your kids or,live in a community of your own age group with loads of friends and activities and supports.

But that's not the reality for lots of elderly people. Many of them know their neighbours, are involved in community activities, have family and friends living nearby and don't want to move or be forced to through bedroom taxes etc.

Also, surely communities benefit by being composed of people of all ages?

SEPT 23 1989

The elderly are not economically viable

iamwhoiam

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Old people need to move to be managed for social and health reasons.

I am old. I don't need managing thanks .

amcalester

Corey Quick Rose wrote: »

I saw an article in the paper yesterday where the Govt are proposing that older people be offered tax incentives to move into retirement home type villages in order to free up family size houses for younger couples.

Personally I think it's an awful idea. Older people are part of the community, have a lot to offer and in many cases frequently have family, including grandchildren coming to stay and still need a family sized house - which they have paid for over many years.

Just wondering what others think.

Whats wrong with giving people an option to downsize? Not all of them need family homes and no one is being forced to do anything.

This will suit some people and won't suit others.

Personally I'd be in favour of my parents downsizing and spending whatever money they pocket in the process rather than "leaving something for the kids".

gozunda

Large thread about this already ...

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057959412/1/#post109524375

kneemos

Corey Quick Rose wrote: »

But that's not the reality for lots of elderly people. Many of them know their neighbours, are involved in community activities, have family and friends living nearby and don't want to move or be forced to through bedroom taxes etc.

Also, surely communities benefit by being composed of people of all ages?

Not for everyone. Given a choice however I reackon many would jump at the chance if retirement villages were more abundant.

freshpopcorn

It really depends on the person and what you consider elderly.
I know a woman and she used go to France and the UK be herself well into her eighties. She organised various trips/etc for people off all ages when some people would have considered her old/elderly.
She's part of her community where she lives. She talks and mixes with people of all ages.
She's still living alone and cooks,etc. She doesn't want to be in a retirement village with just a bunch of old people.
It should of course be up to the person if they want to down side but they should never feel pressured in anyway to do so.
Then there's the time when a person may need more assistance but that's a different situation.

biko

The people that built this land and raised us are now told they're not needed any more and should feck off to some out of the way retirement village.
Maybe it's "progressive" but it feels like kicking them when they're down.

Drumpot

The important word is “offered tax incentives”. They aren’t going to be marched to these places like concentration camps, at least not while the elder demographic are such an important voting block. Might be very good for lonely older people and those who maybe thought of downsizing but didn’t get around to it for one reason or another.

But through the laws of unintended consequences, I could see societal pressure be a potential hazzard of this strategy whereby older people are nearly shamed if they don’t take this option. This could be Happen if these older communities become popular and normal part of society.

_Brian

My mum is 75, independent, drives her car daily and lives in a rural area.

She lives in the family home, 4 bed house she and my dad renovated in the 1990’s.

Most of the family live within 2 miles and call few times a week, her sister, also a widow lives 3 miles away and the visit each other twice a week.

Closest retirement village is 30 miles away. She would have a miserable time there, hate every minute. She’s much better where she is being visited by friends and family daily, she picks up grandchildren from school 5 days a week which as she says earns her petrol money and makes her feel useful and connected to them.

Mrs OBumble

Corey Quick Rose wrote: »

I saw an article in the paper yesterday where the Govt are proposing that older people be offered tax incentives to move into retirement home type villages in order to free up family size houses for younger couples.

Personally I think it's an awful idea. Older people are part of the community, have a lot to offer and in many cases frequently have family, including grandchildren coming to stay and still need a family sized house - which they have paid for over many years.

Just wondering what others think.

They need a spare bedroom for visitors. But not three spare bedrooms. Civilised retirement village homes are two-bedroom for this reason.

Also most family sized homes are two story and have the only shower upstairs. So when granny cannot manage the stairs anymore she ends up sponge-bathing for years. Far better that she moves to an elder-friendly location while she's still fully mobile and can get to know the place well.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One of my grandmothers who was in a very rural place and hard to look after after she got older, moved to a retirement village where she was totally independent if she wanted to be as she had her own place with kitchen etc., but could also eat in a common area etc.

It wasn’t a hospice or anything like that. She enjoyed it.

Wheeliebin30

No one is been forced to do anything they don’t want to.

Why is it when ideas are put forward people get all hot and bothered thinking they don’t have a choice?

Independence is everything to an aging person, which easily challenges the notion of bundling one into a retirement village. Dignity exacts a significant emotional cost, and those celebrating their indomitable youth might find it difficult to fathom this.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

kneemos wrote: »

Not for everyone. Given a choice however I reackon many would jump at the chance if retirement villages were more abundant.

Absolutely I agree that better options should be available for those who are finding it difficult or lonely in the old family home.
But this proposal seemed to be about a concerted effort to persuade older people to move out of their family home to free them up for younger families. I found that a bit disconcerting. Do we really want communities that are completely or almost devoid of older citizens?

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Independence is everything to an aging person, which easily challenges the notion of bundling one into a retirement village. Dignity exacts a significant emotional cost, and those celebrating their indomitable youth might find it difficult to fathom this.

These places are not prisons.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Corey Quick Rose wrote: »

Absolutely I agree that better options should be available for those who are finding it difficult or lonely in the old family home.
But this proposal seemed to be about a concerted effort to persuade older people to move out of their family home to free them up for younger families. I found that a bit disconcerting. Do we really want communities that are completely or almost devoid of older citizens?

People who don’t want to move will not move. People who do will move.

freshpopcorn

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They need a spare bedroom for visitors. But not three spare bedrooms. Civilised retirement village homes are two-bedroom for this reason.

Also most family sized homes are two story and have the only shower upstairs. So when granny cannot manage the stairs anymore she ends up sponge-bathing for years. Far better that she moves to an elder-friendly location while she's still fully mobile and can get to know the place well.

What about the people in there seventies and eighties that I know that still run a farm or run a business of some sorts from home.
What about those who like to sit in there conservatory or grow stuff in the garden.
Houses can be adapted to suit your needs fairly easily.
Should these people pack up now because they may slow down in a few years?
There are of course cases when a person may have to go to residential care but it should he up to them and they shouldn't be guilted because they have to many spare bedrooms.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Drumpot wrote: »

The important word is “offered tax incentives”. They aren’t going to be marched to these places like concentration camps, at least not while the elder demographic are such an important voting block. Might be very good for lonely older people and those who maybe thought of downsizing but didn’t get around to it for one reason or another.

But through the laws of unintended consequences, I could see societal pressure be a potential hazzard of this strategy whereby older people are nearly shamed if they don’t take this option. This could be Happen if these older communities become popular and normal part of society.

That's what I'm talking about. As an absolutely voluntary and no pressure option retirement villages would be great for some older people.

But if it becomes seen as a 'norm', with those who remain in their old home being viewed as selfishly hanging onto a family sized house they don't need; or if tax incentives become tax discouragements eg bedroom taxes that make it too expensive for older and still active people to stay in their own house, then I would have a serious problem with it.

Franz Von Peppercorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What about the people in there seventies and eighties that I know that still run a farm or run a business of some sorts from home.
What about those who like to sit in there conservatory or grow stuff in the garden.
Houses can be adapted to suit your needs fairly easily.
Should these people pack up now because they may slow down in a few years?
There are of course cases when a person may have to go to residential care but it should he up to them and they shouldn't be guilted because they have to many spare bedrooms.

They can stay where they are.

Jesss wept. A tax incentive is not a compulsory sentence.

Nor is it residential care - it’s just a downsizing where there is some support.

People tend to forget as well that a retirement home might bring some people closer to their families, if the families have moved to a city or town and the elderly parent is out the country.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

gozunda wrote: »

Large thread about this already ...

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057959412/1/#post109524375

Apologies, I did a quick scan of the first couple of pages of After Hours and didn't see a thread.

Happy for mine to be merged with the existing one.

kneemos

They're still part of the community. Retirement villages aren't concentration camps.

freshpopcorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

They can stay where they are.

Jesss wept. A tax incentive is not a compulsory sentence.

Nor is it residential care - it’s just a downsizing where there is some support.

Yes. I understand this.
Nobody should feel pressured/guilted into moving because they have to many bedrooms,etc.That's all I'm saying.
Anybody found trying to push a relative into this shouldn't benefit from there estate and may face some type of sentence.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

amcalester wrote: »

Whats wrong with giving people an option to downsize? Not all of them need family homes and no one is being forced to do anything.

This will suit some people and won't suit others.

Personally I'd be in favour of my parents downsizing and spending whatever money they pocket in the process rather than "leaving something for the kids".

It's not just about downsizing though. It's about encouraging older people to move into separate communities composed solely of other senior citizens. While that may be necessary or desirable for some who can no longer cope alone in general surely older, middle aged and younger citizens should be encourage to live in mixed communities, rather than being segregated.

We already have large sprawling estates mainly inhabited by young families, with no mix of age groups and that's not a great thing, in my view.

NIMAN

Personally I think its a very good idea, but the problem is that a lot of people have emotional connections to property that they find hard to break.

I know my own widowed mother would probably enjoy such a village, but the big house she's living in on her own now is the one that she and her late husband bought as a young married couple back in 1970, and then went on to raise a family in.

Its just bricks and mortar to some, but to many its much more than that, and selling it on is sometimes seen a sad/bad/wrong thing to do.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

kneemos wrote: »

They're still part of the community. Retirement villages aren't concentration camps.

They're not living in a mixed community. They're living in a community composed entirely of elderly people. That's not ideal for many older people, or for general community life.

jasper100

_Brian wrote: »

My mum is 75, independent, drives her car daily and lives in a rural area.

She lives in the family home, 4 bed house she and my dad renovated in the 1990’s.

Most of the family live within 2 miles and call few times a week, her sister, also a widow lives 3 miles away and the visit each other twice a week.

Closest retirement village is 30 miles away. She would have a miserable time there, hate every minute. She’s much better where she is being visited by friends and family daily, she picks up grandchildren from school 5 days a week which as she says earns her petrol money and makes her feel useful and connected to them.

That doesnt gloss over the fact that she is squatting in a 4 bed house while a young family of 4 are forced to live in a hotel room because of her selfish actions.

Get her moved on.

Uriel.

Retirement villages are an appalling idea and I can't imagine many Irish people would be positive about the idea. We really don't want to ship our older people off to gated villages and fenced in. Sounds a but Nazi like.

What we need to do is build suitable housing that is adaptable for a range of needs within existing communities. These housing developments could offer access to care, security and support and be open to anyone whether they require care or not. They should also be connected with the community. Ultimately they should be a housing estate, apartment complex, designed specifically for the needs of an Ageing cohort. Support is there if you need it, if you don't, you just go about your day as you've always done before, safe in the knowledge that support or security will be available to you when u need it.

NIMAN

jasper100 wrote: »

That doesnt gloss over the fact that she is squatting in a 4 bed house while a young family of 4 are forced to live in a hotel room because of her selfish actions.

Get her moved on.

I take it that this is a jokey reply.

kneemos

Corey Quick Rose wrote: »

They're not living in a mixed community. They're living in a community composed entirely of elderly people. That's not ideal for many older people, or for general community life.

Better quality of life if they're engaging with their peers and joining in with activities.

2011

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They need a spare bedroom for visitors. But not three spare bedrooms.

How exactly are you assessing what an elderly person needs?
How would you like it if others decided what you “need”?

I am not old but I own a 4 bedroom house which will have no mortgage in a few years. Currently the 3 larger bedrooms are occupied and the “box room” is for storage, however I expect this to change when the kids flee the nest. I intend on staying in my home for the rest of my days. I have paid for it with blood sweat and tears. Anyone that attempts to take this away from me will be disappointed. I am part of a community, close to friends and family. I may also opt to rent out some rooms to supplement my meager private sector pension if I deem it necessary. I have no issues with tax incentives being offered to those that choose to downsize but if a vacant bedroom tax is introduced I will simply convert all empty bedrooms into one large bedroom.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

kneemos wrote: »

Better quality of life if they're engaging with their peers and joining in with activities.

But a lot of people do that in their existing communities - playing bridge, doing voluntary work, helping out in the church etc. while staying in an area where they know their neighbours and feel generally a part of normal everyday life, seeing kids heading down the road to school, hearing toddlers out playing in their garden, getting to know middle aged and young couples moving into the area and so on.

Lillyfae

kneemos wrote: »

They're still part of the community. Retirement villages aren't concentration camps.

Exactly, where I am there are blocks of apartments, in the community, earmarked for people who are retired- differing levels of support for people at different stages. My neighbours just moved to one and I still meet them in the gym where she plays tennis while he's been known to do 2 - 3 sessions of spinning in a row :eek:. Sometimes I take my little one swimming with their grandson. Lovely!

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Lillyfae wrote: »

Exactly, where I am there are blocks of apartments, in the community, earmarked for people who are retired- differing levels of support for people at different stages. My neighbours just moved to one and I still meet them in the gym where she plays tennis while he's been known to do 2 - 3 sessions of spinning in a row :eek:. Sometimes I take my little one swimming with their grandson. Lovely!

That sounds like a lovely idea, because the elderly people who choose to move into those apartments are remaining within a normal mixed community.

freshpopcorn

Lillyfae wrote: »

Exactly, where I am there are blocks of apartments, in the community, earmarked for people who are retired- differing levels of support for people at different stages. My neighbours just moved to one and I still meet them in the gym where she plays tennis while he's been known to do 2 - 3 sessions of spinning in a row :eek:. Sometimes I take my little one swimming with their grandson. Lovely!

All these thing can be lovely once they are done correctly. Similar to the one you mentioned.
My only bug bear with is that nobody should be pushed into doing it.
That's another thread though on how some people threat the elderly.

Drumpot

2011 wrote: »

How exactly are you assessing what an elderly person needs?
How would you like it if others decided what you “need”?

I am not old but I own a 4 bedroom house which will have no mortgage in a few years. Currently the 3 larger bedrooms are occupied and the “box room” is for storage, however I expect this to change when the kids flee the nest. I intend on staying in my home for the rest of my days. I have paid for it with blood sweat and tears. Anyone that attempts to take this away from me will be disappointed. I am part of a community, close to friends and family. I may also opt to rent out some rooms to supplement my meager private sector pension if I deem it necessary. I have no issues with tax incentives being offered to those that choose to downsize but if a vacant bedroom tax is introduced I will simply convert all empty bedrooms into one large bedroom.

I think you should always be encouraged and supported for whatever you decide to do.

The self absorbed instinct of each generation never ceases to amaze me. “Somebody else should fix the problems of today, it’s not my fault, here let’s target that demographic that has no impact on me”..... Then through osmosis that targeted demographic becomes the enemy/barrier of “progressive change”.

Like I said, I think older villages are good ideas and could have some very good traits but as a society we are shockingly poor at self reflection and taking balanced approach’s to these things.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

I think a better option would be to build suitable houses and apartments for elderly people who wish to downsize but to remain in their existing communities, rather than setting up separate 'villages' composed of one demographic only. That's not really a community.

Ush1

I'm in my thirties so a long way off but the thoughts of being surrounded by loads of other old people when I'm older sounds grim as f*ck.

amcalester

Corey Quick Rose wrote: »

I think a better option would be to build suitable houses and apartments for elderly people who wish to downsize but to remain in their existing communities, rather than setting up separate 'villages' composed of one demographic only. That's not really a community.

I think the plan includes both, specific communities and also housing for the elderly within new developments.

When I lived in Canada I did a bit of in (not for) a few of these retirement villages and there was way more of a sense of community within them than most places I've lived.

There'll be pros and cons to anything but people acting like Granny Teresa is going to be forced out of her home are being more than a bit ridiculous.

I can't help but get the feeling that a lot of enthusiasts for this idea are in the market for a three or four-bed semi in the suburbs. Too cynical?

I do see the attraction of a retirement home, but only if the idea is instigated by the senior person themselves or if they are not in a position to take care of themselves with some home-help (eg. suffering from a form of dementia).

It's very easy to say "Oh that sounds lovely Gran, all thee people you'll meet!"; when in fact, if you've ever been to a care home, a lot of the people there are in advanced stages of neurological and other illnesses; it can be really depressing to a thirty-year-old, never mind an eighty-year-old person.

Both of my paternal Grandparents, one of whom had dementia, lived out their days on the farm they loved and worked on. Not in some quasi hospital that smelled of bleach and served meals in aluminum bowls. I'd rather end it all than end up in some kind of care-home for people that nobody else can, or will, take care of.

Lillyfae

freshpopcorn wrote: »

All these thing can be lovely once they are done correctly. Similar to the one you mentioned.
My only bug bear with is that nobody should be pushed into doing it.
That's another thread though on how some people threat the elderly.

Nobody is forcing them! They got older, decided they couldn't be arsed cleaning a 2 up 2 down anymore so they sold it and bought an apartment with service available if wanted- gated parking, nursing, reception etc. The option was there and they took it, what's more they were delighted with the young couple that bought their old house- they'd raised a family there and were happy that another family would grow up there.

ollkiller

Where i work in Cork there is about 60 houses, small two bed units nearby only for tenants who are older. There really is a sense of community and you see them everyday conversing with each other. So it can be a really good idea if implemented correctly.

Graham

Corey Quick Rose wrote: »

I think a better option would be to build suitable houses and apartments for elderly people who wish to downsize but to remain in their existing communities, rather than setting up separate 'villages' composed of one demographic only.

I understand that is part of the proposals.

For any such incentives to be a success there has to be appropriate accommodation that appeals to people in the areas they actually want to live.

I expect we'll see new developments with a mandatory percentage of accommodation suitable for downsizers.

Lillyfae

Lillyfae wrote: »

Nobody is forcing them! They got older, decided they couldn't be arsed cleaning a 2 up 2 down anymore so they sold it and bought an apartment with service available if wanted- gated parking, nursing, reception etc. The option was there and they took it, what's more they were delighted with the young couple that bought their old house- they'd raised a family there and were happy that another family would grow up there.

That's great, but just look at the furore about the HSE's Fair Deal scheme, where the sale of a person's home is used to pay for their care.

Many families are very angry about this, and come up with schemes of their own to evade it, which suggests to me that putting a person into care is also an opportunity for an early inheritance.