Facility for the Elderly

By attempting to label my neighbors and me as monsters, The Times (“The Elderly Belong Too,” Sept. 27) is completely missing the point of our opposition to construction of a 60-bed Alzheimer’s facility in our neighborhood. Our opposition to this completely inappropriate project on a residential lot in the middle of our quiet neighborhood is not some insidious breach of the “social contract.” Instead, we are simply middle-class homeowners attempting to avoid being steamrolled by a $5-billion Maryland corporation.

Every one of us recognizes the need for more facilities for the care of the elderly and infirm. . . . What we do not appreciate is the building of this large facility, with its concomitant traffic, noise and disruption, in the neighborhood we have all worked so hard to make beautiful and peaceful. What we cannot tolerate is this yearlong construction project being rammed down our throats. What we refuse to allow is for us all to be duped by this huge corporation.

The developers have admitted that this 60-bed hospital will charge $4,000 per month and up, thereby grossing almost $3 million per year. Not one of the families whose property values will be decimated can afford $50,000 a year to keep a parent in this home. Consequently, this facility has nothing to do with any social contract; it is purely about lining the pockets of shareholders. The developers don’t care at all about any social contract; they want to build here so they can exploit the beauty and peaceful nature of the neighborhood, as property zoned residential is cheaper to purchase and more attractive than property zoned commercial. Then they can sell their service to those people who can afford it--residents of Beverly Hills and Calabasas--people who would not stand for such a project in their backyards.

Most importantly, the City Council’s denial of an inappropriate conditional-use permit for this property will not result in fewer Alzheimer’s homes being built. Drive around the Valley, there are plenty of lots for sale in more appropriate, nonresidential areas. . . .

This is not a fight against needed medical care. It is not selfish elderly-bashing. It is our struggle to retain the residential character of the neighborhoods we have worked so hard to build, and a desperate struggle to protect our only significant investments. There is simply no excuse for putting a 60-bed hospital in a residential neighborhood.

JOHN ASHBY

Woodland Hills