First, I want to thank Recorder columnist Al Norman for his tireless work to improve the lives of Massachusetts seniors. His work deserves our praise and thanks.

That being said, Al’s Dec. 18 column, “Elders want to age in place, not in ADUs,” is just wrong on a number of counts.

The allowance of accessory dwelling units (ADU) in single-family housing districts (any zoning that allows single-family housing) by right is not an attack on seniors, nor is it an effort to create a war between the generations. Building an ADU in the backyard is one way to assist an elder who wants to age in place, but no longer wants to care for a large house.

The senior could live in an ADU in the backyard while other family members live in the main house. The senior maintains all relationships and services and lives in a smaller building in their neighborhood. The senior simply is not responsible for care of the main house and its grounds.

But that is just one way to age and stay in your community. Sometimes a small move is all that is needed. For instance, a move to an apartment at the former Wilson’s (now called The Putnam) or to one of the other downtown apartments that are being planned may be appropriate. This keeps the senior in the community with all their connections. They are just not living in the same building as before. For some seniors that could work. For others, it would be a problem.

One size does not fit all. And, in no way are the commonwealth’s ADU regulations an effort to make life more difficult for the state’s seniors.

Now let’s consider the subject of “class warfare” between younger families and elders. What the Greenfield Housing Plan states is that our local housing crisis is partially caused by the lack of alternative housing in Greenfield for seniors who may want to downsize and stay in town. Those seniors are, therefore, continuing to live in houses that are larger than they need. Many of those seniors raised their families in those homes and would welcome selling them to a young family if the senior had an appropriate place to move to in town.

Some seniors would like to stay in the community, but not necessarily the house that they have lived in for many years. An ADU is one option, but with the building of some newer housing — rentals, cooperatives, smaller housing for sale, condominiums — there will be other options, too.

One size does not fit all. I appreciate that Norman and his wife wish to stay in the home they bought almost 50 years ago. They should live in that house as long and as happily as possible. If seniors want to stay in the housing that they have lived in for many years, they should do so. They should “age in place.”

I believe that we need to expand the vision of “aging in place” to include “aging in town.” While I love my home and it meets my present needs, it may not always do so. What makes Greenfield important to me is not just the physical building that I live in, but the community that I live in, the services and stores that are close to my home, and the friends that I have here. Most of that does not change if I move to another home in town.

“Aging in place” is a wonderful plan for some seniors, but it is not for everyone, especially if we can develop a variety of housing that meets the needs of seniors here in town. What we need are options, not requirements, for places where any person or family in Greenfield can live comfortably, healthfully and with their needs met.

ADUs provide one very small answer to a much larger question. Let’s work together to meet the housing needs of everyone living in our community. Opening the possibilities is opening opportunities for everyone wishing to live in Greenfield to find housing that meets their needs. Elders are not monolithic — they like options, too.

Susan Worgaftik is a senior who lives in Greenfield. She works with Housing Greenfield.