Raise the Hammer

As the older generations seem to be more drawn to the ballot box than the youngsters, is it not incumbent upon the (near) elderly to vote for policies which will promote the availability of the services they will need rather than face a future without them?

Should not the boomers be the loudest activists for transit, health care, infrastructure and civic services?

If you want to make life easier - especially support for 'staying independent as long as possible' - is it not necessary to vote for:

• excellence in transit and walkability (you're going to have to give up driving when your sight and reaction times are impacted by age or infirmity)
• neighbourhoods that are inclusive of services (you're going to miss smaller groceries stores when your choices are a $20 taxi fare to a mega-mart or the 'only stocks pop, chips, smokes and lottery tickets' convenience store)
• functional infrastructure that brings fuel, power and information into your home and takes waste away (should've started on the sewage treatment plant 20 years ago, what will it be worth to have good sidewalks and streets to get you from your home to transit inside of 250m)
• adequate health care facilities (we used to overbuild hospitals for when the next epidemic disease struck, now patients who need living assistance take up general ward beds and patients languish in the hallways of emergency rooms for days - don't even get me started on the ambulances that make multiple visits per day to the local retirement residence)

I suppose it's a form of elder abuse that is highly reactive... I'm irritated that my parents and grandparents voted for a lot of really stupid policy changes that provided them with benefits at the expense of me (GenX sandwich) and all future generations. How do we get out from under the crushing load we have at all levels of government brought on by 30-40 years of shortsighted decisions?