Re North Frontenac Housing

Mike Fetzer | Jun 06, 2018

It seems so shortsighted and even arrogant that Frontenac County would reject, seemingly out-of-hand, North Frontenac’s proposal to use available housing funds to explore, develop and implement aging in place strategies for local community residents in lieu of traditional brick and mortar warehousing approaches for the aged. The newspaper account of the county’s decision leaves readers to conclude, hopefully erroneously, that the county’s rejection was based solely on the opinions of a few County officials without benefit of advice and counsel from academic, economic and other aging experts. It also appears that Frontenac County officials involved in the rejection made no plausible recommendations for addressing the unique needs and financial constraints identified by North Frontenac officials. The result reflects just another example of remote, arbitrary political interference in local decision-making where officials from relatively afar substitute their judgment (often really just uninformed or misinformed opinion) for the judgment and desires of locally elected officials. The result is often sad consequences for rural communities with limited funds whose needs continue to go unaddressed.

In this case, the county’s rejection is particularly concerning in face of the overwhelming volume of scientific study, academic and other literature which indicate that aging-in-place investments and strategies are often far more economical and socially and otherwise effective for the aged relative to traditional brick and mortar approaches. While more nursing homes and assisted living facility structures and their building and maintenance costs are probably inevitable, let’s hope political leaders consult subject-matter experts and respect the views of local officials when considering all options and making decisions affecting the growing population of seniors at risk. Of course, if Frontenac County officials did their homework before making the decision to reject North Frontenac’s proposal, their efforts and more detailed rationale should have been communicated to local officials and residents and voters to allow for scrutiny and comment in a more inclusive, open and democratic deliberative process.

by Mike Fetzer