It may be unrealistic but he makes no bones about it. From Leisureville, p. 221 (paperback edition which includes the epilogue discussing the IRS audit issue):

"Just what 'special needs' do today's wealthy middle-aged boomers have? Not only do they represent the least marginalized generation in human history; they're not even old. Developers are merely exploiting a legal loophole.

"If The Villages is any indication, the so-called special needs include, among other things, alcohol-saturated faux downtowns and an opportunity to play golf on a different course every day of the month...[s]o why are we providing these 'seniors' with a legally codified right to keep the rest of society at bay?

"Clearly, our federal government shouldn't be in the business of endorsing discrimination against young families. The Fair Housing Act was originally intended to protect Americans from bigotry, not promote it. It's been well over two hundred years since we shamefully designated blacks as three-fifths human. Are young children--and their parents--any less than whole? Do we really want to promote communities where birth certificates are scrutinized at points of entry? Congress needs to reexamine this legislation and either eliminate age discrimination altogether or, at the very least, periodically raise the qualifying age as time and science progress." (emphasis mine)

But in the very next paragraph, Blechman shows which of the two options he would prefer:

"Simply raising the qualifying age still leaves me feeling uneasy."

And on the next page, he shows his hand:

"But until we establish a coherent vision for addressing the needs of our senior citizens, private developers-cum-social engineers will continue to exploit this lack of cultural consensus."

Of course there are only two options for developing this "coherent vision": the private sector or the government sector. Since, in his mind, the private sector is merely "exploiting" "legal loopholes" and a "lack of cultural consensus", and as he's already suggested that the 55+ exemption in the Fair Housing Act should be eliminated (being "uneasy" about simply raising it "as time and science progress"), Blechman clearly shows which option he would prefer.