Also common is HOAs for 55+ year olds, who essentially don't want to deal with kids around.
If you want new construction and are not independently wealthy, you would be extremely challenged to find a house not under a HoA.
It's eye opening when looking in some areas how hundreds of square miles of developments are 100% HoA controlled.
I would never buy such a place, but I do understand why some folks would feel forced into such a transaction.
I feel like people have this really funny idea that everyone should accept them and respect them for exactly who they are and that people should respect whatever it is they want to do. This isn't true at all. Your mom and dad may, but no one else does even if we say we do.
We specifically construct social systems like private clubs, HOAs, etc to keep people out because we don't want to associate with people like them. A great thing about liberty is it allows us to freely associate which means groups of people can construct social gates which keep other people out that can't or won't meet a standard.
>the no-hanging rules are usually included by the communities’ developers
It may be hard / too much hassle / etc. to vote them out.
Freedom of association I guess?
I would pay good money to avoid living near people like that, and indeed I do.
Or it's a condominium development and you need a HOA to deal with the roof and other shared maintenance issues, and things get tacked on.
It is painfully easy to avoid a HOA if you don't want one, but once they exist they stick with the house for basically forever.
And the underlying aspect remains, which is keep poor people out (often explicitly racist, mind you): https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/ugly-legacy-latino-coupl...
Even though not enforceable, they often remain and people still sign them. https://www.vice.com/en/article/y3ppgw/californians-can-now-...