Author Topic: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"  (Read 5898 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14836
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #50 on: July 17, 2019, 08:26:39 AM »

Can we stop with the ageism, please?  I've known two people live to the age of 101 with mental faculties entirely intact and living in their own homes with daily help.  That's one more people than those I've known who've had dementia: old age does not inevitably mean dementia or helpless disability (although I accept it does almost inevitably mean a degree of frailty).

Yes, sure, let's stop with ageism. A landlord can kick out a young tenant. He can also kick out a 102 year old tenant. No difference at all. See? No ageism.

To clarify, that is a partial quote of my post which changes the context.  The point I was making is that old age does not necessarily make one gaga and fit only for a nursing home and that no assumption should be made that it does.

I personally would not kick out a tenant of that age, and would hope others would not either.

I'm a bit confused by your response here.  You don't want people to be treated differently because of their age (even though old people are disproportionately likely to have mental problems, we shouldn't treat the elderly differently because of this).  At the same time, you treat people differently because of their age (will not get rid of them as tenants).

It sounds like you're advocating for a kind of elderly affirmative action.  Is this correct, or am I reading it wrong?

1.  The definition of ageism is prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age.  Making allowance for someone's old age is not ageism.  Making allowance for a child's age is not ageism either.

2.  A forced move in an elderly person is likely to increase their risks of ill health and death, according to studies done in the care industry, and I strongly suspect that the same is true of an elderly person forced to move outside the care industry -

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/healthandsocialcare/2013/06/21/the-impact-of-involuntary-nursing-home-relocation-on-health-outcomes-what-can-be-done-to-help/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/3343719/Moving-home-a-death-sentence.html
http://www.lifecarefunding.com/white-papers/moving-into-long-term-care-facility/

So you're arguing that landlords should give the elderly preferential treatment because they are more likely to die due to their infirmities?  By corollary though, that means that younger people should be treated worse than the elderly by landlords, right?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4872
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #51 on: July 17, 2019, 08:45:44 AM »

Can we stop with the ageism, please?  I've known two people live to the age of 101 with mental faculties entirely intact and living in their own homes with daily help.  That's one more people than those I've known who've had dementia: old age does not inevitably mean dementia or helpless disability (although I accept it does almost inevitably mean a degree of frailty).

Yes, sure, let's stop with ageism. A landlord can kick out a young tenant. He can also kick out a 102 year old tenant. No difference at all. See? No ageism.

To clarify, that is a partial quote of my post which changes the context.  The point I was making is that old age does not necessarily make one gaga and fit only for a nursing home and that no assumption should be made that it does.

I personally would not kick out a tenant of that age, and would hope others would not either.

I'm a bit confused by your response here.  You don't want people to be treated differently because of their age (even though old people are disproportionately likely to have mental problems, we shouldn't treat the elderly differently because of this).  At the same time, you treat people differently because of their age (will not get rid of them as tenants).

It sounds like you're advocating for a kind of elderly affirmative action.  Is this correct, or am I reading it wrong?

1.  The definition of ageism is prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age.  Making allowance for someone's old age is not ageism.  Making allowance for a child's age is not ageism either.

2.  A forced move in an elderly person is likely to increase their risks of ill health and death, according to studies done in the care industry, and I strongly suspect that the same is true of an elderly person forced to move outside the care industry -

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/healthandsocialcare/2013/06/21/the-impact-of-involuntary-nursing-home-relocation-on-health-outcomes-what-can-be-done-to-help/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/3343719/Moving-home-a-death-sentence.html
http://www.lifecarefunding.com/white-papers/moving-into-long-term-care-facility/

So you're arguing that landlords should give the elderly preferential treatment because they are more likely to die due to their infirmities?  By corollary though, that means that younger people should be treated worse than the elderly by landlords, right?

Is it really a zero sum game?

I haven't actually said someone else has to give the elderly preferential treatment, just that I would probably do so myself, knowing as I do that forcing an elderly person to move could have catastrophic consequences for them.  And I don't see why the elderly person shouldn't bed paying market rent - I raise my rents periodically and if that means a tenant moves out voluntarily that's not an issue because I never raise them over market and have always got a new tenant within a couple of weeks.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14836
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #52 on: July 17, 2019, 08:53:52 AM »
Well, yes it's a zero sum game.

If you treat group A better than B, then group B by definition is treated worse than group A.  That's a tautology.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4872
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #53 on: July 17, 2019, 09:02:47 AM »
Well, yes it's a zero sum game.

If you treat group A better than B, then group B by definition is treated worse than group A.  That's a tautology.
Don't we all hope to get to a good old age and then have that taken into account where necessary?  I don't see how being considerate to the old, which presumably we all hope to be, disadvantages anyone.  Except those who die young, of course, but saying don't treat the old well because someone else might die young would mean no state pensions ever, right?

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
    • Journal
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #54 on: July 17, 2019, 10:08:45 AM »
Well, yes it's a zero sum game.

If you treat group A better than B, then group B by definition is treated worse than group A.  That's a tautology.
Don't we all hope to get to a good old age and then have that taken into account where necessary?  I don't see how being considerate to the old, which presumably we all hope to be, disadvantages anyone.  Except those who die young, of course, but saying don't treat the old well because someone else might die young would mean no state pensions ever, right?

This elderly person has choices. In your arguments, she has the facilities to make the choices. And she is choosing to only seek one option and one option only. This is not a destitute and forgotten woman (again, friend of a celebrity, not to mention other friends, who have offered to help her). Just because she is old, does not mean she is being ill-considered or bullied, or neglected.

I could only wish to have the choices and support this woman has her age, if God willing I get to an old age.

And for the record, I would probably let her stay as well. But this landlord does not want her to stay as he has a specific need for the property. And that doesn't make him cold-hearted.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 10:11:46 AM by Lmoot »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4872
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #55 on: July 17, 2019, 10:19:40 AM »
Well, yes it's a zero sum game.

If you treat group A better than B, then group B by definition is treated worse than group A.  That's a tautology.
Don't we all hope to get to a good old age and then have that taken into account where necessary?  I don't see how being considerate to the old, which presumably we all hope to be, disadvantages anyone.  Except those who die young, of course, but saying don't treat the old well because someone else might die young would mean no state pensions ever, right?

This elderly person has choices. In your arguments, she has the facilities to make the choices. And she is choosing to only seek one option and one option only. This is not a destitute and forgotten woman (again, friend of a celebrity, not to mention other friends, who have offered to help her). Just because she is old, does not mean she is being ill-considered or bullied, or neglected.

I could only wish to have the choices and support this woman has her age, if God willing I get to an old age.

And for the record, I would probably let her stay as well. But this landlord does not want her to stay as he has a specific need for the property. And that doesn't make him cold-hearted.
If we are talking about the specific case - which I haven't so far, I've talked in generalities and from my own position, I think we just don't know enough of the facts to make a complete judgement.  Yes, the tenant has choices and options but even with resources and support having to move at her age is a risk.  And we know almost nothing about the landlord's situation or that of the relative he wants the property for, so we don't know anything really about that "specific need", whether he is cold-hearted or not, or how his stated need for the property weighs against the interests of the current tenant.


Perhaps part of the problem is the economic model of the personal/individual landlord, which sets up the possibility of conflicting personal interests.  From that point of view the model of corporate or collective ownership would seem a better one all round.


Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
    • Journal
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #56 on: July 17, 2019, 10:29:22 AM »
Well, yes it's a zero sum game.

If you treat group A better than B, then group B by definition is treated worse than group A.  That's a tautology.
Don't we all hope to get to a good old age and then have that taken into account where necessary?  I don't see how being considerate to the old, which presumably we all hope to be, disadvantages anyone.  Except those who die young, of course, but saying don't treat the old well because someone else might die young would mean no state pensions ever, right?

This elderly person has choices. In your arguments, she has the facilities to make the choices. And she is choosing to only seek one option and one option only. This is not a destitute and forgotten woman (again, friend of a celebrity, not to mention other friends, who have offered to help her). Just because she is old, does not mean she is being ill-considered or bullied, or neglected.

I could only wish to have the choices and support this woman has her age, if God willing I get to an old age.

And for the record, I would probably let her stay as well. But this landlord does not want her to stay as he has a specific need for the property. And that doesn't make him cold-hearted.
If we are talking about the specific case - which I haven't so far, I've talked in generalities and from my own position, I think we just don't know enough of the facts to make a complete judgement.  Yes, the tenant has choices and options but even with resources and support having to move at her age is a risk.  And we know almost nothing about the landlord's situation or that of the relative he wants the property for, so we don't know anything really about that "specific need", whether he is cold-hearted or not, or how his stated need for the property weighs against the interests of the current tenant.


Perhaps part of the problem is the economic model of the personal/individual landlord, which sets up the possibility of conflicting personal interests.  From that point of view the model of corporate or collective ownership would seem a better one all round.

Yes. Because the corporate model would voluntarily not raise her rent for over a decade, because they want to be nice. It is apparent that she has relied on the goodwill of the landlord (and his father before him), to live the way she has. She would not even be a consideration under the corporate model, or would have been priced out somewhere around 1995. Individual landlords are sometimes the only or best option for some folks.

There is a thread around here specifically about compassionate landlords. I have been a "compassionate" landlord for nearly a decade. 4 out of my last 6 tenants work a local non-profit that requires higher education but pays bumpkis. I charge my tenants waaaaayy below market rent because they have all been responsible and have done things on their own to maintain or improve the property (with my permission). It's my old residence that I may use as my snowbird house when I am older and move up north, so it is more important to me that it maintains good vibes and good caretakers. And I like being able to help people who work for a cause I believe in. And if I ever move back in I will likely host interns from the organization, at cost-only (they would pay only utilities). But everyone is expected to leave if and when I decide I want my home back. And I would give probably at least 6 months notice (as I did the one time I had to do renos on the property and couldn't while the tenant was there).

I also offer my tenants a 2-yr lease, in which I agree to have the property available to them as long as they keep to terms, for 2 years. And on their end it is a month-month, meaning they can leave when they want with 30 days notice. They could NEVER find such a deal from a corporate model.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2019, 10:34:43 AM by Lmoot »

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #57 on: July 17, 2019, 05:01:42 PM »
It seems like people want the tenant to have all the benefits of an indefinite fixed term lease while they want the landlord to have the burden of running a month to month lease. For example if the tenant decided "30 years is enough, I'm outta here" I'm sure people would be less compassionate to the poor landlord.

Fact is, a lease is a lease. An ongoing lease is not a licence for life. The landlord gave plenty of notice. It's his house.

Malkynn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #58 on: July 27, 2019, 07:45:08 AM »
Wow.

I just...wow.

I can't fathom making a 102 year old woman move after nearly 30 years of renting to her.
I just couldn't do that, and can't fathom ever being someone who could.

Wow...

She had thirty years of stable accommodation and evidently was happy to stay there for 30 years. That's a win win for both parties. If he had evicted her after 5 years people would be saying "how could you evict a 77 year old. And after only five years. What about stability of tenure?"

Just because you take on a renter doesn't mean you are obliged to let the renter stay in your property for the rest of their life - or your life - that's why there are no-fault, no-reason termination of lease laws in place, as long as your rental contract isn't for a fixed term.

Oh, I get that, and I would never argue that tenants can't be evicted.

I just couldn't personally ever be the kind of person who could evict a 102 year old woman. You could, obviously, but I already know that you and I are very different people with very different values, which is fine, the world needs different types of people.

I just cannot personally fathom being the kind of person who could do this.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
    • Journal
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2019, 09:08:56 AM »
Wow.

I just...wow.

I can't fathom making a 102 year old woman move after nearly 30 years of renting to her.
I just couldn't do that, and can't fathom ever being someone who could.

Wow...

She had thirty years of stable accommodation and evidently was happy to stay there for 30 years. That's a win win for both parties. If he had evicted her after 5 years people would be saying "how could you evict a 77 year old. And after only five years. What about stability of tenure?"

Just because you take on a renter doesn't mean you are obliged to let the renter stay in your property for the rest of their life - or your life - that's why there are no-fault, no-reason termination of lease laws in place, as long as your rental contract isn't for a fixed term.

Oh, I get that, and I would never argue that tenants can't be evicted.

I just couldn't personally ever be the kind of person who could evict a 102 year old woman. You could, obviously, but I already know that you and I are very different people with very different values, which is fine, the world needs different types of people.

I just cannot personally fathom being the kind of person who could do this.

Could you be the kind of person who helps subsidize someone for 30
years at below market rent? Because that is the same “type of person” making the request she moves out. At what age would you be comfortable asking a tenant to leave?

How is she any different from most of the elderly in this country who have to change their living situation later in life. Be that moving to assisted-living, or moving in with their adult children. This is not an anomaly. Nearly everyone moves at a certain age, if they don’t die first.

What if you had a child that had student loans who just graduated school and is looking for their first full-time job? What if the rents are double or possibly triple what you are getting for a property you already own? So you want to help your kid out by letting them stay in your property. Could you be that kind of person? Or are you going to voluntarily both subsidize someone else’s rent, while paying full market price elsewhere, for your family member.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4872
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #60 on: July 27, 2019, 10:14:26 AM »
Wow.

I just...wow.

I can't fathom making a 102 year old woman move after nearly 30 years of renting to her.
I just couldn't do that, and can't fathom ever being someone who could.

Wow...

She had thirty years of stable accommodation and evidently was happy to stay there for 30 years. That's a win win for both parties. If he had evicted her after 5 years people would be saying "how could you evict a 77 year old. And after only five years. What about stability of tenure?"

Just because you take on a renter doesn't mean you are obliged to let the renter stay in your property for the rest of their life - or your life - that's why there are no-fault, no-reason termination of lease laws in place, as long as your rental contract isn't for a fixed term.

Oh, I get that, and I would never argue that tenants can't be evicted.

I just couldn't personally ever be the kind of person who could evict a 102 year old woman. You could, obviously, but I already know that you and I are very different people with very different values, which is fine, the world needs different types of people.

I just cannot personally fathom being the kind of person who could do this.

Could you be the kind of person who helps subsidize someone for 30
years at below market rent? Because that is the same “type of person” making the request she moves out. At what age would you be comfortable asking a tenant to leave?

How is she any different from most of the elderly in this country who have to change their living situation later in life. Be that moving to assisted-living, or moving in with their adult children. This is not an anomaly. Nearly everyone moves at a certain age, if they don’t die first.

What if you had a child that had student loans who just graduated school and is looking for their first full-time job? What if the rents are double or possibly triple what you are getting for a property you already own? So you want to help your kid out by letting them stay in your property. Could you be that kind of person? Or are you going to voluntarily both subsidize someone else’s rent, while paying full market price elsewhere, for your family member.

There is no necessary correlation between "30 years below market rent" and "not evicting a 102 year old woman".  The first is 30 years of bad management and need not have happened.  The fact that it did does not then excuse the eviction of someone aged 102.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

oldladystache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 696
  • Age: 75
  • Location: coastal southern california
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #61 on: July 27, 2019, 11:38:39 AM »
Wow.

I just...wow.

I can't fathom making a 102 year old woman move after nearly 30 years of renting to her.
I just couldn't do that, and can't fathom ever being someone who could.

Wow...

She had thirty years of stable accommodation and evidently was happy to stay there for 30 years. That's a win win for both parties. If he had evicted her after 5 years people would be saying "how could you evict a 77 year old. And after only five years. What about stability of tenure?"

Just because you take on a renter doesn't mean you are obliged to let the renter stay in your property for the rest of their life - or your life - that's why there are no-fault, no-reason termination of lease laws in place, as long as your rental contract isn't for a fixed term.

Oh, I get that, and I would never argue that tenants can't be evicted.

I just couldn't personally ever be the kind of person who could evict a 102 year old woman. You could, obviously, but I already know that you and I are very different people with very different values, which is fine, the world needs different types of people.

I just cannot personally fathom being the kind of person who could do this.

Could you be the kind of person who helps subsidize someone for 30
years at below market rent? Because that is the same “type of person” making the request she moves out. At what age would you be comfortable asking a tenant to leave?

How is she any different from most of the elderly in this country who have to change their living situation later in life. Be that moving to assisted-living, or moving in with their adult children. This is not an anomaly. Nearly everyone moves at a certain age, if they don’t die first.

What if you had a child that had student loans who just graduated school and is looking for their first full-time job? What if the rents are double or possibly triple what you are getting for a property you already own? So you want to help your kid out by letting them stay in your property. Could you be that kind of person? Or are you going to voluntarily both subsidize someone else’s rent, while paying full market price elsewhere, for your family member.

There is no necessary correlation between "30 years below market rent" and "not evicting a 102 year old woman".  The first is 30 years of bad management and need not have happened.  The fact that it did does not then excuse the eviction of someone aged 102.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

So it was wrong to let her stay for 30 years and also wrong to make her leave?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4872
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2019, 12:13:24 PM »
There is no necessary correlation between "30 years below market rent" and "not evicting a 102 year old woman".  The first is 30 years of bad management and need not have happened.  The fact that it did does not then excuse the eviction of someone aged 102.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

So it was wrong to let her stay for 30 years and also wrong to make her leave?

If having a below market rent was a problem, then it should have been raised during those 30 years.   It's not the tenant's fault if the rent they are paying is below market levels, is it?  So why should the fact that the rent is below market levels be a reason for evicting the tenant?  It shouldn't.  If the landlord is concerned about the level of rent, they should raise it (local laws permitting, of course).   The issue of eviction is a totally separate one.  The landlord can't logically use their failures over those 30 years to then say "we need you to leave because we failed to raise the rent when we could have done". 


Sibley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3909
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #63 on: August 02, 2019, 02:18:17 PM »
There is no necessary correlation between "30 years below market rent" and "not evicting a 102 year old woman".  The first is 30 years of bad management and need not have happened.  The fact that it did does not then excuse the eviction of someone aged 102.  Two wrongs do not make a right.

So it was wrong to let her stay for 30 years and also wrong to make her leave?

If having a below market rent was a problem, then it should have been raised during those 30 years.   It's not the tenant's fault if the rent they are paying is below market levels, is it?  So why should the fact that the rent is below market levels be a reason for evicting the tenant?  It shouldn't.  If the landlord is concerned about the level of rent, they should raise it (local laws permitting, of course).   The issue of eviction is a totally separate one.  The landlord can't logically use their failures over those 30 years to then say "we need you to leave because we failed to raise the rent when we could have done".

Logically then, the landlord today should raise the rent to market rate. Which would likely force the 102 woman out anyway due to fixed income and an inability to afford the market rate. End result is the same.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #64 on: August 02, 2019, 09:24:55 PM »
In reality as a landlord this is why I delegate most decisions (other than rent increase and tenant approval) to my PM, so that she takes the heat and not me. That's what you pay your PM for.

MrDelane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #65 on: August 02, 2019, 10:02:33 PM »
For anyone interested - looks like after the backlash the landlord gave her another month to figure stuff out.  She had offers of help in California but decided to move to Washington DC to be with family:

https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/07/30/102-year-old-woman-evicted-evicted-moves-washington-d-c/

Milkshake

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #66 on: August 06, 2019, 09:36:27 AM »
Thanks for the update MrDelane!

Worked out for her I suppose, though based on the article saying it "outraged the LA County Supervisor", it wouldn't surprise me if this landlord is going to be negatively affected for any other properties he might own. Surprise inspections, barely-within-limits property tax appraisals.. etc. It's too bad she couldn't have just moved in with family when he gave the notice rather than throwing this big ordeal first. Especially since that's what she did anyway.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #67 on: August 06, 2019, 12:41:39 PM »
Not sure why people expect acts of kindness during business negotiations.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4872
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #68 on: August 07, 2019, 01:25:58 AM »
Not sure why people expect acts of kindness during business negotiations.
True.  But it pretty much renders useless all those "rent vs buy" calculators, doesn't it?  If you want a secure old age without being made to move against your will at an inopportune time, you have to buy whether it's financially optimal or not.

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11672
  • Age: 61
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #69 on: August 07, 2019, 06:57:45 AM »
Thanks for the update MrDelane!

Worked out for her I suppose, though based on the article saying it "outraged the LA County Supervisor", it wouldn't surprise me if this landlord is going to be negatively affected for any other properties he might own. Surprise inspections, barely-within-limits property tax appraisals.. etc. It's too bad she couldn't have just moved in with family when he gave the notice rather than throwing this big ordeal first. Especially since that's what she did anyway.
Nope, doesn't work that way in CA. Thank you Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14836
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #70 on: August 07, 2019, 08:26:54 AM »
Not sure why people expect acts of kindness during business negotiations.
True.  But it pretty much renders useless all those "rent vs buy" calculators, doesn't it?  If you want a secure old age without being made to move against your will at an inopportune time, you have to buy whether it's financially optimal or not.

Not really.  They're still applicable.  But you always have to remember that as a renter, the place you live is owned by and subject to the whims of another person.  You always need to be prepared to pack up and move as a renter.  If you want stability/permanence, renting shouldn't be an option you consider.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Canada
Re: Landlord gives 102 year old woman the "boot"
« Reply #71 on: August 07, 2019, 10:13:23 AM »
Not sure why people expect acts of kindness during business negotiations.
True.  But it pretty much renders useless all those "rent vs buy" calculators, doesn't it?  If you want a secure old age without being made to move against your will at an inopportune time, you have to buy whether it's financially optimal or not.

Not really.  They're still applicable.  But you always have to remember that as a renter, the place you live is owned by and subject to the whims of another person.  You always need to be prepared to pack up and move as a renter.  If you want stability/permanence, renting shouldn't be an option you consider.
To give both your arguments their due, essentially having a "home" becomes more valuable as you age, so the coldness of reducing it to a business transaction starts looking uglier.  But the burden of aging lies on the individual,fundamentally, not on the surrounding people.