And many people don't. What's your point? I generally think we should err on the side of fewer restrictions when there's disagreement around the existence of things like this.
You're not obligated to buy a home in such a community. Even in areas where it's not practical to find a home with no HOA, the vast majority of them are low maintenance and don't do or cost a ton. You just don't hear people complaining about those.
> the vast majority of them are low maintenance and don't do or cost a ton. You just don't hear people complaining about those.
I've lived in a country ruled by a dictator. I can assure you - in most such countries the majority of the folks are happy with the status quo. It's only a small percentage that is badly abused. Therefore we should all be OK surrendering our rights to the government, right?
And so it is with HOAs. The majority don't screw you, but I don't want them to have the power to screw me.
> Even in areas where it's not practical to find a home with no HOA
Which is quite a lot of them; there are cities where you're unlikely to find anything reasonable in city limits.
> the vast majority of them are low maintenance
Most HOAs can become worse on a moment's notice depending on who has power in them, because most people (reasonably) don't want to spend the energy fighting in bitter ridiculous politics.
Yeah, it seems like if you want to form an association of homes where everyone has agreed that the houses must be beige, you should be free to do that.
