"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


Of course I don't believe that. I do believe that people have the right
to
enter into contractual agreements with each other. I believe that if you
don't think the term of the contract are reasonable, then you shouldn't
sign
it. If you think that your association has passed rules that are
unreasonable then you have the right to lobby to change or abolish them.
You have the right to sue in court for relief.

But when the contractual agreements are made in such a way that
precludes any other choice, it is not merely a contractual
agreement. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United
States for many years ruled all minimum-wage laws unconstitutional
precisely through your argument -- the government did not
have the right to interfere in contracts between two free
persons, no matter how exploitative they happen to be.

However, of course, things are never quite that simple. Markets
are never truly open or free. People don't have the kind of
choice that pure free-market advocates pretend. There are
many times when "if you don't like it -- shop somewhere
else" merely ducks the real issue. It doesn't work with

In the Unites States, for instance, we have abandoned that
attitude when it comes to racial discrimination, to minimum
wage, to mandating a safe and healthy workplace, and in many
other areas. We recognized that the cry of free contractual
choice is nothing more than an excuse for immoral and
unethical exploitation.

I understand what your are saying and I agree with you in principle. One
can't freely enter into a contract to do something illegal. For instance, I
couldn't contract with someone to kill another person. However, the courts
consistently side with HOAs when there is a dispute.

I don't agree that in general, people don't have alternatives in housing. I
also don't think that the public is generally dissatisfied with the
covenants and restrictions associated with property in common interest
development.

The Community Associations Institute Research Foundation commissioned a
Gallup Poll in 1999. Only 8% of the respondents indicated that they would
not live in a development with an association because they didn't like the
rules or felt the rules were too restrictive. Of the respondents who would
live in housing with a community association, 7% said that the primary
reason was because they liked the rules. I think this refutes the popular
assumption that most people who are members of a HOA are dissatisfied and
would move given a chance. It also seems to refute the assumption that
people who like living arrangements with community associations are recently
control freak or "neighborhood nazis." Apparently, 92% of the people polled
ranked the restrictions below other reasons for either buying or not buying
in a common interest development. Only 1% said that they would consider
selling for below market value; 8% would sell at market value; 42% wouldn't
sell under any circumstances. That doesn't sound like people are lining up
to get out from under the rules.

According to the survey, 89% of the residents had a good understanding of
rules. Only 2% indicated that they had either a poor understand of complete
ignorance of the rules. The remaining 9% said they had a "fair"
understanding of the rules.

It seems that the biggest issue about rules is that 30% of the respondents
felt that the rules could be enforced more equitably.
http://www.cairf.org/research/gallup-1.html