An Ideal Solution?

While intentional communities offer workable solutions to the problems discussed earlier, there are a number of weaknesses to consider when thinking about intentional community and aspiring eco-villages. Some general issues include:
· Lack of reasonably well paying jobs inside or outside of the community. The more desirable the land and the closer it lies to desirable towns, the more expensive it is. Further, these towns are already teeming with more over-educated workers than jobs. Most community members get by with odd jobs, part-time jobs, micro-businesses, or telecommuting. Starting new businesses with a new community is a daunting if not impossible task.
· Under utilization of the carrying capacity of land due to zoning and economic issues. Zoning regulations affect community density and house clustering. Density is the largest challenge for community founders because more members means more affordability. Artificial limits on population density restrict the community’s ability to cluster buildings together for maximum open space.
· Attracting OPM (Other Peoples’ Money) to fund and endow the projects. There are many potential sources of funds, however it is nearly impossible to obtain traditional bank financing. Some co-housing communities are beginning to break down this barrier.
· “Anti-business” and “anti-establishment” attitudes. Lack of business skills coupled with anti-business attitudes is a leading cause of community failure.
· Lack of business/entrepreneurial skills. Community is by nature idealistic, which can often overshadow pragmatic concerns and approaches to creating a sustainable business.
· Membership Processes. Communities are rightly afraid of economic and emotional damage caused by visitors and prospective members. Membership requirements tend to be either too rigid and inflexible or too lenient. Overly lenient requirements attract unhealthy people who can consume an entire community’s resources to address- and if necessary- remove them. On the contrary, overly rigid requirements stifle the community’s idea base.
· Founders Syndrome. This is where community members grant founding members forms of parenting roles, thereby creating a family replacement complete with all of its dysfunctions.
· Cost. Some co-housing projects cater exclusively to high-end members, which limits or prevents participation by those with less means. The co-housing concept as it currently stands does little to solve the poverty problem discussed earlier
· Discrimination. The Federal Fair Housing Act makes discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, religion or national origin illegal. These restrictions, while vital for diversity, can affect a community’s reasonable attempts to screen prospective members, possibly even including legal action brought by people claiming discrimination as a form of revenge for not being admitted.
· Urban Refugee Syndrome. This concept expands on the idea of personal space, where people want to spread themselves out to enjoy privacy and freedom. Carried to its present extreme, this desire is responsible for the urban sprawl and land use issues we face today.

Each of these issues affects every proposed community’s potential viability. Careful planning combined with knowledge and patience can yield the enormous rewards of a diverse, exciting and thriving community. I believe intentional community is the ultimate solution to the problems presented in this paper. There are numerous structural problems, however; inherent in the way this movement is being pursued that prevent this movement from achieving the success this planet deserves.