One day before the Nov. 4 election, Paul Jablon wrote a My Turn column introducing us to “the new guard” of Greenfield: “a group of younger people who have stepped forward to take Greenfield on a pathway of economic resilience, sustainability, and community.”
According to Jablon, this “new guard” of younger people loves Greenfield “as it was and is.” He says they have a “clear vision” for a “densely populated downtown,” where “our elderly citizens have central city housing to downsize to.” He added that this younger new guard group “of course” were all voting No on Question 1, to convert a 1-acre parking lot on Hope Street into housing — of some sort.
The same column also introduced us to “the way older, mostly men,” of the “Yes we want a parking lot” group (actual name: “Give Us Back Hope” committee) who Jablon asserts were not only “untruthful,” but met the “definition of insanity” by doing “the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.”
This disparagement of “way older, mostly men,” caught my eye, because a few weeks earlier a city councilor posted on Facebook that “Al Norman has hand-picked someone … to run against me.” Her post ended with this fund-raising pitch: “Throw me a few bucks so in this last month it’s a little bit easier for me to fight with the old men of Greenfield.”
Yet on election day, this councilor had no opponent. For a second term she ran unopposed. Six out of seven city councilors ran unopposed, and five of those who are precinct councilors were elected by less than 500 votes. Seventy percent of Greenfield voters did not bother to vote. “Are voters uninformed, or apathetic?” the old joke goes. The answer: “I don’t know, and I don’t care.”
During the Hope Street campaign, the “Give Us Back Hope” committee was accused of being racist, anti-housing, and not wanting low-income people to live near them. On social media, there was an uptick in anti-boomers comments, like this one posted last month: “Boomers probably own most of the houses in Greenfield already, so we need to build more housing so we can have people from other demographics moving to town.”
Old people are being encouraged by housing advocates to move out of the home where they raised a family, and “downsize” into small quarters. Greenfield’s 2023 Downtown Revitalization plan suggests the city “repurpose large homes into multifamily.”
This upsurge in anti-aging sentiment is troubling. One-third of our population will be 65-plus through the next decade, and we have a much higher percentage of seniors than the state average. Our 2024 Housing Study concluded: “The broader Greenfield region has substantially more small senior households living in larger units than the state average. Many households in this group might be interested in downsizing to small units.”
However, many “way older” people might prefer to “age in place” and not feel pressured to “downsize.” Aging in place is defined as the ability to live in one’s own home and community safely, independently, and comfortably, regardless of age, income, or ability level. Elders want choice, including the choice not to be nudged to sell their large home.
I lobbied for three decades on Beacon Hill for elderly people’s right to live independently at home. I often would testify: “I admired older people so much, I decided to become one.” I don’t want to see age used as a weapon in our public debates, regardless of the issue. Debate the message but don’t personally attack the messenger. Whether you are the young guard, old guard, or in-between, don’t use age to demean people.
Local government has unlearned how to have a real conversation with its constituents. At the recent League of Woman Voter’s debate, Greenfield’s economic development director stated: “While I love the city council, that format is not conducive to anything resembling conversation or question asking.” Sadly, she is right.
In a Sept. 30 opinion piece, Jablon described a “vision to build a robust, denser, walkable, inviting downtown that will re-energize and diversify local businesses.” This is more fantasy than vision. Many locally owned businesses in Greenfield have been crushed by billionaire national corporations, and the shoppers who hit the highways in search of bargains. We have been talking about “sales leakage” ever since the west side rotary became our second downtown.
We can continue to promote our young people but without denigrating “way older” people. Greenfield does not have to become No city for old men.
Al Norman’s Pushback column is published in the Recorder the first and third Wednesday of each month.