One geezer's rebuttal to the knock on Aurora
As a former Auroran, I was deeply offended when news broke of an online survey that decreed, of the 150 biggest towns in the nation, Aurora was the third-lousiest place in which to retire, at No. 147. Lousier than Chicago, the only other town in Illinois big enough to make the list. TYhe City of Big Shoulders ranked 144th retirement-friendliest.
Before Marie Wilson, the reporter I assigned to the story, even had a chance to do any research, I was making a mental checklist of all the things about Aurora that make it just fine for us<we?> codgers. (I'm including myself because, I, in the eyes of AARP and many others, qualify for senior citizenship. And being a part of that demographic allows me to throw around terms like "codgers.")
• There's plenty of nice housing, including lots of upscale no-maintenance townhouses.
• Two very nice government-owned golf courses, Orchard Valley and Philips Park, with greens fees very easy on the pocketbooks of old gaffer golfers. Philips remains one my all-time faves: great layout, reasonably well-conditioned and very old-golfer friendly with its moderate length.
• Lots of opportunities to hear the kind of music that appeals to classic rockers. I saw Kenny Wayne Shepherd and the Smithereens at Downtown Alive.
• And, as one comedian around here (certainly not me) mentioned, "Hey, they have a casino! Plenty of old people go there."
• How about the beautifully restored Paramount Theater? Saw Beatles tribute "Rain," "Hair" (walked out during the flag-burning, though) and other semi-senior productions.
Heck, my indignation was so profound, I was ready to write the rebuttal story on Aurora's behalf. Turns out that wasn't necessary. The city's PR guy had a response that was pure marketing genius: Who cares?
"Aurora's future is not as a retirement community, but as a young and vibrant family-oriented city," Clayton Muhammad, director of public information, told Wilson.
Aurora, he said, has "relatively low housing prices" and a median age of 31.5. And that, is "one of this city's greatest strengths - attracting companies from across the globe in need of a qualified workforce both now and in the future."
Take that, WalletHub. The financial advice website, in determining the best and worst places to retire, downgraded Aurora for having too many people 65 and older in the workforce (rank: 146), too few per capita health care facilities (145th), and not enough home-care options (142nd). Sure never noticed that shortage, but I'm guessing the places that topped the list - Tampa, Florida, and Scottsdale, Arizona - are simply teeming with such amenities.
So, you might be asking yourself: If Aurora's such a great place to live, and eventually retire, why did you move?
I'm glad you asked. My wife and I bought just before the housing bubble burst. What seemed to be a great retirement nest egg turned out to be a financial albatross. We just couldn't afford the mortgage, proerpty taxes and homeowner assessments on a place that had dramatically dropped in value. That's certainly not unique to Aurora; I'm sure many of you can relate.
When and if we retire, it likely won't to Aurora, maybe not even Elgin, our current hometown. Might need to retire outside Illinois.
And that's another story for another day.
jdavis@dailyherald.com