The case for retirement villages – despite negative people

Negative people can be so dispiriting and destructive. 

A prime example occurred a couple of weeks ago. The Property Council released independent research it had commissioned on the benefits that retirement villages deliver the community, and it received coverage in The Canberra Times and Sydney Morning Herald newspapers.

The core result of the research was there is “a looming seniors’ housing crisis”, namely we are not building enough age supportive housing to keep up with rising demand.

This generated a letter to the editor from an Anna Molan. This is what she had to say (in part):

Your article, Call for land action to avoid seniors housing crisis (August 27, p1) quotes the ACT Property Council’s view that more land is needed for retirement villages. It seems to me that these villages are highly convenient for the mega-corporations that now operate them across Australia, but may provide less rosy returns for their residents than the advertising suggests.

Many older people may not want to live in a large family home any more, but whoever thought they would want to live in a community comprising only other older people? Anything that vaunts itself as a ‘village’ should be viewed with suspicion. It is likely to resemble a showcase fascist paradise rather than the pulsing, diverse life of an actual neighbourhood.

Where would you rather live?

What is Ms Molan saying to all those people who have chosen to live in a village? That they have allowed themselves to be duped to join ‘a fascist paradise’? Or that surrounding yourself with older people is a fate worse than death itself?

And village operators are all ‘mega-corporations’ of snake oil salesmen?

Why can’t Ms Molan take a step back and consider there must be something right about villages because there are over 2,000 of them and over 180,000 people have decided to join one.

Oh, and not for profit operators like the Salvation Army, the Catholics, Baptists and Anglicans to name a few are amongst the largest village developers and managers. In fact many of the most upmarket new villages are being developed by these groups.

What is Ms Molan saying to all those people who have chosen to live in a village? That they have allowed themselves to be duped to join ‘a fascist paradise’? Or that surrounding yourself with older people is a fate worse than death itself?

What the research says

If she had checked the Property Council research she would have seen the recommendations it makes to state and local governments focus on:

 Policies that incentivise the integration of villages with the general community;

 Development yield improvements including car parking flexibility, landscape area

 Reductions and lower open space infrastructure charges; and

 Rate rebates for retirement village dwellings.

These appear to be changes which will directly benefit the village resident rather than the operator.

The report also calculates that villages save the community money and deliver better ageing outcomes for residents. It says: “Studies show that retirement villages generate $2.16 billion of savings annually, by delaying the entry of residents to aged care facilities, and ensuring fewer and shorter hospital stays… Villages also take the load off local infrastructure – there is less need for councils to provision for sewerage and water, libraries, community centres and sports facilities, as well as lower traffic generated and fewer car parking demands.”

None of these seem to me to be negatives, facts that Ken Hutchings, the retiring President of the ACT Retirement Villages Residents Association took the trouble to write in to the Sydney Morning Herald to say:

“Anna Molan (Letters, August 31) suggests that anything that vaunts itself as a [retirement]village should be viewed with suspicion’ and adds that movement to a village is likely to involve movement to something ‘that resembles a show-case fascist paradise rather than the pulsing, diverse life of an actual neighbourhood.’

Personally, my experience is that the majority of the 33 retirement villages in the ACT come nowhere near such extreme description. A retirement village is a residential complex predominantly or exclusively occupied by retired individuals, who have entered into a contract with the operator of the complex, to occupy the premises or to receive services.

I have lived in a retirement village for the past eight years and found it to be a most caring environment here residents and staff work together as family ensuring that I can fully enjoy my declining years. I was encouraged to seek legal advice before signing my contract, and was fully aware of, and satisfied with, the financial arrangements involved.

In a small number of ACT villages there is conflict, where management are not fully complying with the provisions of the ACT Retirement Villages Act. In some such cases residents have been encouraged to make application to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking mediation/resolution.”

Well said, Ken!

Well said Ken! And thank you for speaking up. More of us have to do so.

Otherwise the negative people in the world will dominate discussion and villages – with all their benefits to residents (and the community) – will be held back at the loss of tomorrow’s residents.

Yes, there are some operators who are not perfect, and there are some residents who are not perfect for villages. But let’s not make the majority suffer because of a vocal minority.

Let’s not be negative but constructively positive.