Responsibility for home-alone children

            Last week, The Washington Post’s Brigid Schulte maligned the plight of “latchkey children” who come home after school each to an empty household.  It pained me to read the article, not exactly because I felt sorry for Schulte or her son, but because her diagnosis the problem missed the mark.  Remember, there are two ways to deal with problems: either mitigate the negative effects or remove the causes.  I’d like to address the latter by citing two reasons for the possible existence of the “latchkey child” phenomenon.

            First, there is no such thing as a free lunch: Parents who move to the suburbs for “good schools” and “safe neighborhoods” also may harm their children in doing so.  The practice of single-use zoning has resulted in subdivisions and cul-de-sac neighborhoods that are not integrated into the rest of society.  Where we live is now separate from where we work, where we play, and where we seek out basic goods and services.

         Consequently, driving becomes a necessity (and a chore) in order to seek out activity. The only options for younger children are to play in the street (which parents abhor) or sit in front of the computer monitor.  The D.C. suburbs are ground zero for this type of misguided planning.  If homes coexisted with retail, recreation, and entertainment, children could find after-school stimulation in their own neighborhoods.

            Second, the problem of suburbia also affects the parents.  Why should adults, who may sit in an hour’s worth of traffic during their afternoon commutes, demand that schools supervise their children until moms and dads arrive home in the evening?  Why do local governments continue to build office “parks” in locations far from schools, homes, and commerce instead of integrating places of work into existing neighborhoods?

            There are so many quality of life issues that could be resolved with a proper vision in suburban planning.  True, this problem of latchkey children is not limited to the suburbs, nor does a well-planned vision always result in a successful community.  But at good-faith effort could be made to redress those concerns—such as education, transportation, energy, the environment, racial and class equity, crime—if Americans, in looking for a place to live, valued vibrant communities open to participation.  The current model of meandering subdivisions centered around automobile use sends one message only: I want someplace safe to park my cars and not be bothered by my neighbors.

         We do ourselves a disservice by viewing our homes as a rest-stop in between car trips to school, work, and shopping.  The solution is to create 24-hour communities, where there is always something to do a short distance from the front door.  Adults should be closer to work, children should be closer to school, and everyone should be within walking or transit distance of everything.

         In wondering why children are forced to return to an empty household after school, maybe we should look at how poor planning decisions, from the household level all the way up to the policies implemented by our elected officials, are to blame.