View john powell's powerpoint presentation -- mentioned in this editorial.

Published Nov 19 2001

Much is made these days of the consequences of mass suburbanization. It's often said that residents of the far suburbs have gained a sense of safety, independence and elbow room in exchange for long, frustrating commutes, a damaged environment and a lost sense of community.

If this analysis is correct -- and we believe it is -- then the biggest losers in this bargain are probably older Americans. No single segment has been harmed more by a post-1945 suburban development pattern that keeps homes separate from commercial districts and makes frequent driving almost mandatory. This arrangement -- often derided as sprawl -- is regarded fondly by baby boomers who grew up in suburbs and have chosen to rear their children in the far metropolitan reaches. Surveys show that three-quarters of Americans see this as the ideal lifestyle.

But sprawl has made millions of older Americans prisoners in their own homes. In a more urbanized setting, millions of these people would be able to walk to the pharmacy, the doctor, the grocery and the dry cleaners, or take a short bus trip to the movies or the corner cafe to chat with friends. In suburbia, they must lean increasingly on others to drive them around. Too often they feel it's not worth the trouble. The narcotizing TV screen becomes their primary connection to the outside world.

A mystery is why the potent senior citizens lobby has not grabbed hold of the sprawl issue in a bigger way; why it has not been more active in demanding more mixed-use, village-type developments, why it has not aligned itself more clearly with a smart growth movement that wants to change zoning and other laws to encourage more vibrant, convenient communities and more transportation options, including walking.

Nowhere on a top list of policy priorities published recently by the American Association of Retired Persons is smart growth mentioned, for example. Only by probing finer print can you find brief reference to the aging population's need for "livable communities" that "coincide with a desire by younger households to reduce commuting times ...."

Indeed, the perspective of older Minnesotans is conspicuously missing from current discussions launched by the environmental group 1000 Friends of Minnesota.

At a session last week, john powell of the University of Minnesota Law School, elegantly outlined the ways government has subsidized suburban-style growth to the detriment of poorer, nonwhite populations. Rick Collins of Ryan Companies spoke plainly about steep challenges developers face in producing more village-like neighborhoods. Barbara Toren of the Izaak Walton League warned that the quality of life for future generations depends on development choices made today. Sen. John Hottinger, DFL-Mankato, described the need -- post Sept. 11 -- to focus limited resources on enterprises that bring Minnesotans together, not that drive them further onto islands of self-interest.

Older people -- and those who are fast approaching old age - should demand to be a part of this important discussion.