By Melissa Davidson
“Aging is not lost youth but a new stage of opportunity and strength.” Betty Friedan (1921-2006)
If one takes this quote to heart by feminist icon Betty Friedan, it’s clear that successful aging should be considered a time of growth in life rather than an inevitable decline.
By redefining aging, we can start tackling some of the challenges and needs of a dramatically growing older population.
One of these challenges involves reinventing how people are housed in our country.
The two largest generations in our nation – Baby Boomers and Millennials – are finding common ground on the housing front, literally.
The concept of merging college dorms with nursing homes to create a multigenerational living situation is less radical than one might think and is actually becoming more common throughout the world.
Boomers are traditionally community-oriented and have probably lived in college dorms in a former life, which makes them more open to living with people they are not related to.
Meanwhile, Millennials are open to new ideas and ways of thinking, especially if they can save money on rent as they attend college.
Netherlands
The Dutch have already figured this out.
In exchange for spending at least 30 hours a month with the elderly residents at Humanitas retirement home, college students in the small town of Deventer get to live rent-free in their own apartments within the facility.
As part of their volunteer agreement, the students spend time teaching older residents new skills, such as how to use social media, email and tablets, or they’ll simply make dinner and watch TV.
Bringing the outside world into the retirement community is a refreshing change for the residents.
Research has shown that social interaction with friends leads to less loneliness and mental decline and increases overall health in older adults.
At least two more nursing homes in the Netherlands have opened their doors to college students since Humanitas laid the groundwork in 2012.
Spain and the city of Lyon, France have also started similar programs.
United States
Historically, 5 to 10 percent of the U.S. population has been 65 and older at any given time, but within the next four decades that percentage is expected to grow to 20 percent, according to Renae Smith-Ray, a research scientist in the Center for Research on Health and Aging at University of Illinois at Chicago.
Older generations are living longer and the impact on caregivers, social service agencies and government spending are issues that need to be addressed now, Smith-Ray said in the Chicago Tribune.
Photo Credit: jamieleto/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
“We’re going to need to begin thinking outside the box much more regularly to deal with the needs of our aging population,” Smith-Ray said. “This type of housing arrangement is one terrific example of that.”
Smith-Ray is referring to the three multi-generational homes in Chicago run by non-profit Housing Opportunities & Maintenance for the Elderly (H.O.M.E), which helps low-income seniors stay independent for as long as possible.
In some cases, seniors live with college students and even middle-aged married couples.
The combination of college dorm/independent senior living facility (all rolled into a three-story brick building) seems to work.
Living spaces and bathrooms are shared, but each resident gets his/her own bedroom. Meals are prepared by a cook during the week and college-age resident assistants on the weekends.
Some organized trips are planned, but most of the bonding happens during downtime at the house.
Sharing a laugh over a favorite show or getting help on the computer creates a connection.
Many seniors aren’t particularly computer-savvy, so learning how technology can benefit them is a way younger generations can help.
With apps like Doctor on Demand and NowClinic, senior residents can connect with a healthcare practitioner face-to-face through a mobile device, instead of depending on a ride to the clinic.
Multigenerational housing isn’t just for college students or low-income seniors.
More families are living under one roof – millennials returning home to pay off student loans and grandma or grandpa need more assistance so they move in, too.
One big happy family as they say.
Builders are capitalizing on the multi-generational trend by designing homes featuring shared space, but also with separate living areas and private entrances.
Sort of looks like a dorm room, doesn’t it? Photo Credit: Sean Hayford Oleary/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
Miami-based homebuilder Lennar has made a big push into multigenerational space with its NextGen line of homes as has Palm Beach County-based Kotler Homes.
Statistics show that a record of 57 million Americans, or 18.8 percent of the population, lived in multigenerational family households in 2012.
Historically, older Americans were the ones most likely to live in multigenerational households, but younger adults are now surpassing them.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Paul/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Pres. Power Expert: Trump Would Be American “Strong Man” Who Ignores The Constitution
Donald Trump is running a presidential campaign that often seems to be more about projecting strength than it is about specific policy positions.
Trump presents himself to voters as a “strong man” type who would deport more than 10 million people currently living in the United States, bar Muslims from entering the country, shut down mosques, and perhaps set up a national database to track Muslims.
Given that Trump is now the presumptive Republican nominee, it’s worth considering how his “strong man” approach would play out in office.
Some are skeptical of his rhetoric, arguing that Trump, if elected, would have to contend with the reality that presidents generally cannot act alone.
The Constitution divides most powers between the President and Congress: presidents cannot go to war unilaterally, they cannot make unilateral decisions about most matters involving national security.
The constitutional system of separation of powers uses checks and balances to make sure no one branch of government has concentrated power.
That is certainly correct, in theory.
In practice, however, recent presidents have shown a willingness and ability to write Congress out of the equation.
A President Trump who determined to act without Congress would have recent precedent to draw on—most notoriously, the unitary executive theory relied on by the Bush administration.
The unitary executive theory rejects the idea of checks and balances, claiming unchecked power for the president, even the power to set aside criminal laws.
As political scientist Jim Pfiffner observes, this theory assigns presidents “powers once asserted by kings.”
The Bush administration invoked the unitary executive theory to justify torture and warrantless surveillance prohibited by criminal law, and to claim complete power over decisions to use military force.
It is well worth finding out what Trump—and other candidates, for that matter—think of the unitary executive theory.
During the 2008 election, reporter Charlie Savage surveyed the presidential candidates to ask specific questions about the scope and limits of executive power. Of course, getting candidates on the record is not enough—President Obama has not adhered to the limits on power he acknowledged when answering Savage’s questions as a candidate. But it is a useful starting point to ask Trump and other candidates whether they acknowledge constitutional limits on presidential power.
Some of Trump’s public statements suggest he believes that constitutional limits would not bind him. For instance, during a debate, Trump said that President Obama lacked the “courage” to use military force against the Assad regime in Syria in 2013.
In reality, President Obama lacked constitutional authority to act alone against Syria—he needed congressional authorization, which Trump seemed to dismiss.
Trump has also said that he would order the military to carry out torture, declaring that they would follow his orders, whether lawful or not. Trump seemed to later backtrack when he said he would “stay within the laws” in responding to ISIS—but his new position does not immediately make sense.
Trump said he’d like to change the law to allow waterboarding. But waterboarding is torture.
Torture, by definition, is illegal—both under U.S. law and international law. The U.S. has signed a treaty prohibiting torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Would Trump have the United States withdraw from the treaty? If Congress did not support him, would he act anyway?
Candidate Trump has proposed a number of radical, dangerous ideas. He is running a campaign based in large part on the promise that he would be a strong leader who would take actions other presidents have been unwilling or unable to carry out.
The U.S. constitutional system has checks in place that, in theory, can set limits on presidential power. But those checks have not functioned well during times of crisis, including in the years since 9/11—especially when Congress is passive or deferential.
It’s essential to consider what a President Trump could do to deliver on his promise to rule as a strong leader. The answer is that it could largely depend on how far he is willing to go.
Chris Edelson is an assistant professor of government in American University’s School of Public Affairs. His book, Power Without Constraint: The Post 9/11 Presidency and National Security, will be published in spring 2016 by the University of Wisconsin Press.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
What’s Old Is New Again: How The Rams Moved Back To LA And What It Really Means For NFL Fans
Los Angeles, the home of Hollywood, Universal Studios and Chaz Bono, now has its own professional football team once again.
A vote last week among NFL owners rendered the final nail in the coffin for St. Louis fans; their Rams will relocate to Los Angeles for the immediate 2016 season.
For owner Stan Kroenke, the 30-2 decision serves as a victory to return his team to their previous home. It’s been 21 years since the Rams played their last game in Los Angeles, in which time Kroenke has repeatedly criticized the economic and fan support put forward by St. Louis and will now cough up $550 million in order to leave the city.
Waiting for him, however, is one of the largest entertainment markets in the country and enticing plans for an alluring new $1.8 billion dollar stadium located in Inglewood, 10 miles from downtown L.A. Until the completion of the stadium in 2019, the Rams will make their home in the L.A. Coliseum.
The narrative is thrilling and nostalgic for former Los Angeles Rams fans—who claimed the team for the majority of its existence—but is far more somber for St. Louis fans, victims of yet another NFL team to jumped ship on the city.
In 1988, the St. Louis Cardinals (yes there was an NFL team called that too) left and relocated in Arizona. Now, despite the city’s proposal for a new $1.1 billion dollar stadium along the Mississippi River, St. Louis fans are left in the same position as they were almost thirty-years ago.
The city has long been at odds with Kroenke and the NFL. Last Wednesday, Mayor Francis Slay spoke out saying, “At this point I’m so frustrated and disappointed with the NFL.”
Slay went on to call the league “dishonest” and added that he has no desires to re-involve himself with the NFL.
The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum will serve as the temporary home of the LA Rams until they open a new stadium in 2019. Photo Credit: InSapphoWeTrustFlickr (CC By 2.0)
Kroenke’s feud with the city and its fans has continued despite the team’s departure. In an interview with the LA Times Kroenke stated that he wasn’t going to, “sit there and be a victim.”
However the move is not unlike many before it, leaving fans and taxpayers as the true victims.
The city and county will be forced to pay off bonds used to fund the stadium until 2021, but will do so without a team to cheer for. Instead, they’re left only with the memory of four winning seasons and one Super Bowl in the team’s tenure in St. Louis.
Fans in San Diego and Oakland may have reason to fear the same fate. Although the state of California will undoubtedly welcome its fourth NFL franchise in the near future, Commissioner Roger Goodell also gave the San Diego Chargers the option to jointly join the Rams in L.A.
The team has one year to accept the offer, which would then be passed to the Raiders should San Diego decline. Both teams were additionally granted a $100 million dollar incentive to build new stadiums in their current locations.
Only the coming months however, will prove whether or not the incentive money is enough to draw owner’s eyes away from the glamorous Los Angeles market. The league is about dollars and cents, and they will do anything to further their product.
The near future will also indicate whether the Rams’ move is a good one. Los Angeles undeniably offers economic opportunities, but it also carries its fair share of baggage. The results had in St. Louis will far from satisfy Los Angeles fans who have been spoiled over the years with the success of teams like the Lakers and Kings.
The fans, after all, they are the true life-blood of the league (whether they be in the seats or on the couch).
It’s time now for Stan Kroenke to deliver his new fans with a product that will succeed beyond the balance sheet.
Cover Photo Credit: Emmanuel_D Photography/Flickr (CC by 2.0).
What Do You Think?
-
Pro Gun Groups Plan To Hold Fake “Mass Shooting” Near University Of Texas Campus
A college campus. The sound of gunfire. Screams. Bodies strewn about, covered in blood.
What has all too frequently come flashing across our Twitter streams and TV screens in this case is not another actual campus shooting, but a planned demonstration at the University of Texas, Austin.
This Saturday at noon local time, two gun rights groups, Come and Take It Texas and DontComply.com plan to conduct a “crisis performance” after marching through Austin openly carrying loaded rifles and other weapons according to Matthew Short, a spokesman for the organizations.
Once near the university, “crisis actors” will use props made of cardboard and fake blood while the sound of gunfire rings out from bullhorns to perform a mock mass shooting incident, complete with pretend armed heroes who will apparently end the fake carnage with cardboard weapons of their own.
The groups intend to highlight their positions regarding “gun free zones”, like the UT Austin campus.
“Gun free zones are killing us,”A statement on the event’s Facebook page reads. “These target rich environments are letting our children be murdered by evil people. Now is the time to stand up, take a walk, and put pressure on politicians to ban Gun Free Zones.”
UT Austin is the site of two campus shootings, the Tower shooting in 1966, in which 14 people were killed and 32 wounded by student Charles Whitman. Whitman was killed by police, ending his siege.
In 1990, student Colton Tooley fired shots on campus from an AK-47, before ending his own life in the main library.
Initially, organizers endeavored to hold the event on campus, however this was met by threats of criminal charges by the Board of Regents. Organizers now intend to hold the event on a public right of way, using the university as a backdrop.
June 1, 2015 marked the passage of S.B. 11, the so called ‘campus carry law’, which Governor Greg Abbott signed in to law.
The law gives concealed carry permit holders legal authority to carry their weapons on campus beginning August 1, 2016.
In response to this, UT Texas has set up an advisory board, will hold two public forums and has also set up a survey to explore how the University intends to comply with the statute, while maintaining public safety.
Given the recent terror attack in San Bernardino and the shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado, some feel that this event is in bad taste, and could be potentially dangerous.
Ralph Fisk, the CEO of Fisk Consultants in Hutto, TX, and a published Emergency Management professional with expertise in Active Shooters, Counter-Terrorism and Physical Security, has heard a great deal about this event from his local law enforcement and other campus contacts.
“I understand the right to exercise your first and second amendment rights, as in this case, however that planned demonstration in my opinion is over the top,” Fisk said. “Having a mock ‘active shooter’ incident is better saved for those that exercise these incidents in preparation for an actual attack. As an Open Carry Supporter, I feel this is not something that I personally could support.”
Joan Neuberger, a UT Austin Professor and advocate with the campus organization Gun Free UT, told the Statesman that staging, “a mass shooting during an anxious time for students – finals week – not only breaks rules but shows real disrespect for the feelings of students, faculty and staff who don’t want to have guns around them in the first place, but will be forced to put up with guns in public places in 2016.”
Cover Photo Credit: Derek Key/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?