I agree with your sentiments here but the other perspective is that you've worked your entire life, saved up, built up a wonderful home with all your belongings and now at the end of your life you have to give up everything you've worked for. Possibly your home is one of the few things that give you comfort and peace.

Well, yes. You can't have one without the other. You want good accessible living? That requires density and transit.

It's not like the last 70 years of terrible urban planning and lack of transit construction didn't happen during that "entire life" you speak of.

My initial reaction to reading this - 'Hey old people, just die already!'

A more considered reaction - shouldn't you at least offer 'older folks' an incentive to give up their lives other than 'it'd be better for society'? I'll be one of these older folks in a few years, and were I to stay in my house into my dotage, I'm three minutes away by car from the emergency room, less than a minute from several groceries, coffee shops, barbers, laundries, parks, etc., ensconced in a building (a future coffin?) whose wiring, plumbing, masonry, landscaping, etc., are all known to me. Please feel free to enlighten this middle-aged goat on why he should be put out to pasture to give room to 'new homeowners.'

If you want to be pessimistic, sure.

The article lists the incentives: mobility without a car, independence, and reduced risk of a fatal accident. It's about being realistic with your own constraints. I fully don't expect to be driving indefinitely, if I want to (continue to) live somewhere without transit I need to plan accordingly or look for options before it's too late.

Some do move to 'sheltered housing.' One of the issues is going gaga creeps up on you, thinking of my gran here. One moment you're doing fine, the next you're having to give up driving but at that point you're maybe beyond packing all your stuff, rehoming the cat, putting your house on the market, finding a new place etc.

> They'd rather stay in their houses with all of their stuff

Or they're old and poor, have little more than a house to their name, and the alternative is indifferent care by bottom-feeding nursing homes.

What homes are those?

I mean "nursing home" and "retirement home" are two different things. One houses the chronically ill, often old - at very high prices but payable by insurances/the-state and the other houses old people at merely high prices but these prices have to be paid by the residents and there's no way to make them low even cutting all your costs. And apartments and trailer parks that house seniors at a slight discount.

But yeah, you're basically right, selling one house to movement into uncertain housing is terrible decision and there's

So talking specifically about the poor, I mean nursing homes. Good retirement homes have waiting lists years long and cost a pretty penny.

But "nursing home" implies someone is disabled and not just old.

Entitlement to what? Staying alive?

Most old people don't have the money to move into a retirement home so where would they go if they sell their house? Even with high housing prices, the money from a home sale isn't going to net more than enough for 2-5 years in a retirement community.

And yeah I've dealt with these issue for both my parents.

A small downtown apartment in a smaller city would be affordable, easier to clean and maintain, have elevator access so it doesn't require climbing stairs, will have transit options and amenities in walking distance. It's what young people want to see more of, but NIMBYism (often by aging people) constantly blocks that kind of development.