Whenever issues arise in a community or neighborhood (rezoning, land disputes, infrastructure, etc) which could potentially affect a disproportionate part of the population, there is frequent disagreement as to how these issues should be handled. Often, such issues needn’t be present, as often there is an urge for a sense of organization or unity within a community.

Often, such needs take the form of community boards, which make decisions and influence public policy regarding the going-ons/issues within a neighborhood or a community. However, the actions of these groups are not always effective nor wide-reaching.

As pointed out in Tarry Hum’s essay, despite the good intentions of these boards and their attempted measures to ensure organization and unity within a region on public issues, politics and conflicting interests prevent community boards from reaching solid agreements on key issues within a community. Ultimately, smaller groups, such as church parishes, cultural groups/organizations, businesses and other individually-driven organizations/entities have proven more beneficial to their respective communities. Rather than getting entangled by politics, the members of the communities themselves are the best instigators of change/development, thus they succeed where bureaucratic community boards fail.