Let's start with the need for capital. One of the biggest challenges for community initiatives is size. By that, I don't mean private projects, but rather cooperative projects such as ours and those we see appearing across the country. The problem is always that the players are so small that, even if they pool all their resources, they can never amass enough capital to start the project and transfer its ownership to the community.
The reason it's so important for small-scale infrastructure to belong to the community is that it has a major structural effect. When a private project runs into trouble and has to be terminated, the major structural effect is ultimately the destructuring of the network. People are forced to adapt very quickly and to try to find solutions in an environment where there are already very few. The structural effect can be preserved where the infrastructure relies on the community, not a private project.
However, who among us has the necessary capital to decide to break the piggy bank and invest in the project so its ownership can be turned over to the community? This is impossible.
The solution would be to have a start-up fund so that we can go further. Then everything's a matter of attitude. From a regulation standpoint, it's a matter of attitude. We need people to view our ability to cobble things together as a strength rather than a threat as regards the health aspect.